joekirkwood.blogspot.com

Misrepresent Moore and “All this is about is taxes”

2010-05-06T12:37:00.008-05:00

In case you missed the news over the past few weeks Michael “Misrepresent” Moore, the self-proclaimed “community activist” and “government watch dog” targeting Kirkwood, filed yet another frivolous lawsuit against our City. Misrepresent Moore was suing the rest of us in Kirkwood over the funding of the new Memorial Walkway.

This latest lawsuit … just like Misrepresent Moore’s previous lawsuit was thrown out by the judge.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

How many frivolous lawsuits has Misrepresent Moore filed or threatened to file against our community and our officials since he started targeting Kirkwood in 2005?

Here is an article from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat (StLG-D) about the lawsuit:
http://www.globe-democrat.com/news/2010/may/05/judge-throws-out-kirkwood-memorial-suit/

Here is an important quote I want to bring to your attention from Misrepresent Moore in the article:

“Moore could not be reached for comment on Wednesday morning. He said last week that the suit is not about race, Cookie Thornton, or other issues. He said he was not trying to stop the building of the memorial and supports it. “All this is about is taxes,” he said.”

Are we really supposed to believe “All this is about is taxes” from Misrepresent Moore?

If “All this is about is taxes” … then why does Misrepresent Moore not appear to pay his personal property taxes in Kirkwood?

Let's look at the facts ...

I can not find a Michael B. Moore that has paid personal property taxes at his alleged address of 311 Attucks St., Kirkwood, MO. This is the address he used when he ran for Mayor and City Council in 2008. As an aside, I have never been able to find where Misrepresent Moore got an occupancy permit to be a renter at this residence which is required in Kirkwood.

I can not find a Michael B. Moore that has paid personal property taxes at his address of 10838 Big Bend Blvd., Kirkwood, MO. This is the address he has been using as a “registered voter” in Kirkwood. In addition, I can not find any personal property tax information for the person Misrepresent Moore shared the occupancy permit with at this residence. So, is anyone in the household paying personal property taxes for a car or other property?

The only place I can find personal property tax information for Michael B. Moore is at his old address in Creve Couer, MO. Please note it is three years of back taxes owed from 2005 through 2007:

Account Number: 853394235
Record Status: Active
Name: Moore Michael B
Taxing Address: 11501 Craig Ct
Saint Louis, Missouri 63146
School Sub Code: 108D
City Code: 082
Site Code: 0406
Total Assessed Value: 0
Tax Rate: 7.1822

Personal Property Tax Due: 853394235

Tax Year - 2007

Taxes - $112.69

Interest - $42.64

Penalties - $2.71

Amount Due - $158.04

Tax Year - 2006

Taxes - $108.41

Interest - $69.38

Penalties - $3.56

Amount Due - $181.35

Tax Year - 2005

Taxes - $154.38

Interest - $123.72

Penalties - $5.49

Amount Due - $283.59

Total Amount Due >> $622.98

So, from 2008 until now … where has Misrepresent Moore paid his personal property taxes on his car and any other personal property? Has he paid any taxes at all in our community?

Maybe it would help if Misrepresent Moore worked at being an actual tax-paying, productive member of our community … rather than pretending he is a “community activist” or a “government watch dog” and filing frivilous lawsuits.

Finally, I can only hope our local press will make sure they point out what Misrepresent Moore really is and has really done in Kirkwood, if they are going to let Misrepresent Moore continue "to play make believe" in their reporting.

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

If you have a take on this posting, then hit the "Comment" link below and follow the rules about posting.

An Open Letter to KeithMail Recipients

2010-02-24T00:03:00.008-06:00

On February 22, 2010 I received an email from Keith Williams, the founder of KeithMail (Kmail) offering all City Council candidates an “opportunity of submitting a statement that Kmail can forward to our readers.” His email ended with “We don't want to leave anyone out. Kmail and all Kirkwood appreciates the effort that each and everyone of you is putting into this campaign. Together we will make Kirkwood even better.” You can see the full email below.

Due to the unusual situation Keith has placed me in regarding KeithMail, combined with his disingenuous offer, I will not be responding to what he tries to portray as an “opportunity.”

Somehow, in Keith’s world …

I can submit to Keith a candidate statement, but I will not be able to see what the other candidates might submit, because Keith has excluded me from receiving KeithMail all together?

How does that make any sense?

It is important to remind KeithMail recipients that I have been purposefully excluded by Keith from receiving any of his dispatches, since the inception of KeithMail. This is despite my numerous requests to be added to his alleged “100% free …service for all of Kirkwood.”

I do not know what possesses Keith to exclude me. Over the years he has never offered any explanation or given any rationale for what has been solely his choice. This kind of continued exclusionary and restrictive practice shows that Keith and his KeithMail are far from fulfilling any of the self-aggrandizing proclamations he has made about having a “community oriented” newsletter.

Besides, if you want to know more about my campaign, you can simply go to the campaign website 24/7 and not have to worry about whether you get KeithMail or not. There you can find out more about me, why I am running for City Council and how you can get involved at:

http://www.joeforkirkwood.com/

Have a great day!
Joe

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

The email from Keith:

22 February 2010

Dear Kirkwood City Council Candidates
David Poger, Bob Sears, JoeToenjes, Paul Ward, Iggy Yuan

Along with spring time our Kirkwood Elections are really not too far away. Kmail would like to offer you the opportunity of submitting a statement that Kmail can forward to our readers to help them make an informed opinion about you in the voting process unfolding in early April. I know each of you are anxious to get your word out to the public and Kmail is here to help you and the public get to know each other.

If you choose to offer Kmail something we can print, please try to keep it reasonably short as has been done in years past. We prefer not to edit. If all goes well, Kmail might ask you for a follow up later on. It would be helpful if you could get your essay to us by March 1st.

In addition to your statements, Kmail may offer a straw poll before the election date again this year. The last one was exceedingly accurate and was lots of fun to produce. The phenomenal subscription growth of Kmail continues as we look forward to your participation. We hope to be of service with offerings such as yours and from the others who are running in this very important civic election.

Would you be kind enough to let me know you got this message? Kmail wants to make SURE each of you have received this offer and wether you wish to participate or not. It also helps us to certify your Email address is correct. I know our readers will look forward to your "blurb" as will I. We don't want to leave anyone out.

Kmail and all Kirkwood appreciates the effort that each and everyone of you is putting into this campaign. Together we will make Kirkwood even better.

Keith Williams
for Kmail and Kirkwood

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

If you have a take on this issue, then hit the Comment link below.

Take The Time To Read This Article ...

2010-02-14T14:14:00.010-06:00

Hello Folks,

With all the hype and media over-exposure Kirkwood has gotten in recent weeks concerning the Justice Department Agreement signing and the second anniversary of the City Hall tragedy, I wanted to point out to you all a good, well-balanced article recently written by fellow Kirkwoodian, Bill Freivogel at the St. Louis Beacon. The 2-part article is titled, "Kirkwood's Journey."

Here is the link to the main page for the series:
http://www.stlbeacon.org/content/view/100029/34003/

Take a moment to read it.

I think Bill has done an excellent job of putting into a more realistic perspective a lot of what we heard in television reports and interviews, as well as read in other publications over the years regarding the Meacham Park Neighborhood in Kirkwood.

His article in my opinion gets a nod of F-A-B --- Fair, Accurate and Balanced.

I left my response to the article on the Beacon's web site.

Have a great day!
Joe

Scamboozle 2010 - Part I

2010-01-29T13:51:00.017-06:00

As a new election season is upon us in Kirkwood, I wanted to return to a posting from the end of our last full City Council election period in 2008.

For a little review here is that posting about the Webster-Kirkwood Times’ own Don “Scoop” Corrigan’s attempt to “Scamboozle” our community with an editorial on a subject matter he obviously never did any research on – City Elections via a Ward system versus an At-Large system:

http://joekirkwood.blogspot.com/2008/05/scoop-bamboozle-scamboozle.html

I clearly point out how uninformed and off-base Scoop is with that editorial given what should be his own practical experience voting in his own Ward 1 in Sunset Hills. Yet, as far as I have seen Scoop still stands by his “Scamboozle” – “Wards are better than At-Large” nonsense of a premise.

Well, here is the upcoming election information for Kirkwood and Sunset Hills provided in recent editions of the Webster-Kirkwood Times and the South County Times:

Candidates
Kirkwood City Council (3 open seats)
Joseph L. Toenjes, 329 Rose Ln.
Bob Sears, 308 Altus Place
David Poger, 4 Thorncliff Ln.
Paul W. Ward* **, 224 S. Geyer
Iggy Yuan* **, 1231 Wilton Ln.

Sunset Hills
Mayor R. Michael Svoboda,* 10231 Kennerly - William J. Nolan Jr., 1470 Royal Spring Dr. - Mary Beth Wymer, 13041 Pagada Parkway - Frank Gregory, 9811 Eagle Crest Ct.

Ward 1 Franklin A. Hardy Jr.*, 421 Rayburn Ave.
Ward 2 Thomas A. Hrastich*, 9255 Birch Tree Ln.
Ward 3 Stephen M. Webb,* 11948 Lombardy Ln.
Ward 4 Claudia J. Svoboda, 10231 Kennerly

* denotes incumbent
** Petition filed, city is awaiting verification by St. Louis County Board of Election

So, here is the updated election facts regarding Scoop the journalist’s “alleged” better Ward system in his own Sunset Hills versus what is factually proven to be better At-Large system we have in Kirkwood:

Sunset Hills from April 1996 to April 2010:
Mayoral Elections – only 4 out 8 had more than one candidate – 50% of the time the voters of Sunset Hills DID NOT get a choice for Mayor
Overall City Council Elections – only 22 out of 56 had more that one candidate – 60% of the time the voters of Sunset Hills DID NOT get a choice for City Council member
Don Corrigan’s own Ward 1 City Council Election – only 5 out of 14 had more than one candidate – 64% of the time Scoop DID NOT get a choice for City Council member
Overall Candidates per City Council seat – only 82 out of 56 – 1.46 per seat

Kirkwood from April 1996 to April 2010:
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 – 9 out of 10 had more that one candidate – only 10% of the time the voters of Kirkwood did not get a choice for City Council member
Overall Candidates per City Council seat – 42 out of 26 – 1.61 per seat

The numbers have only gotten worse for voters in Sunset Hill’s Ward system on the City Council level. So, I have to wonder if the turnout will continue to be worse in Sunset Hills versus Kirkwood?

We will have to wait for the results which will be published in a future posting "Scamboozle 2010 - Part II."

Assuming Scoop Corrigan will go to the polls for this year’s City Council elections and has over the last 14 years in Sunset Hills, I have to wonder …

Just how does a journalist ignore going to the polls 9 out of 14 times to vote for only one ward candidate,

then continue to stand behind 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?

This question is made that much tougher given this election in Sunset Hills could easily result in the Mayor and one of the City Council members from Ward 4 residing in the same household.

Funny ... did Scoop’s “Scamboozle” editorial ever mentioned the concepts of “concentration of power” and “nepotism” that is consistently found in Ward systems?

Finally, will Scoop ever do an editorial to retract his uninformed and factually inaccurate claims in order to set the record straight on Ward systems versus At-Large systems …

OR

… will we see a “Scamboozle 2012” posting?

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

If you have a take on this issue, then hit the "Comment" link below.

Justice Department Agreement Signed

2010-01-21T22:08:00.005-06:00

At tonight's City Council Meeting the Justice Department Agreement was signed.

I have not had a chance to read it myself, but I wanted folks to be made aware it is available.

I hope readers of this blog will take the time to read the agreement, so we all as a community can move forward.

Here is a link to the agreement:

http://www.kirkwoodmo.org/admin/NewsReleases/2009/Mediation%20Agreement.pdf

More information and links to the Supporting Documents and Press Release can be found at our City website:

http://www.kirkwoodmo.org/

As always if you wish to comment please do, but I will not post any comments without a Name and an Email address placed in the Post. Hit the Comment link below.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-18T22:33:00.002-06:00

WISHING JOEKIRKWOOD BLOGSPOT READERS ...

A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS ...

AND A BLESSED NEW YEAR!

Stop By The CHOOSE KIRKWOOD Booth At Greentree Festival

2009-09-18T07:50:00.003-05:00

Hello Folks,

I hope you will come by the CHOOSE KIRKWOOD booth this weekend. The booth is located across from the new pavilion added to Kirkwood Park with the total revamping of the Lions Pavilion and Lions Barbeque Pit area.

Or better yet … first grab a cold, frosty Fitz’s Root Beer or a delicious Ronnie’s Rocky Mountain Ice Cream Cone at the Lions Club booth, then come right around the corner – just two booths over – to the CHOOSE KIRKOOD booth.

Once there you will have an opportunity to:

Sign the CHOOSE KIRKWOOD proposal – IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY.
Find out more about why Kirkwoodians need to VOTE NO on Prop. 1 – ONCE AGAIN
Get a free CHOOSE KIRKWOOD sticker to proudly wear – WHILE SUPPLIES LAST

Hope to see you there!
Joe

The Challenge We As A Community Now Face

2009-08-23T23:42:00.006-05:00

Below is the email I sent to Mike Brown, our City Administrator, concerning the "war of attrition" the members of HAK have waged, are waging and will continue to wage on our community.

In the nearly 12 years I have been a citizen of Kirkwood I have never seen any group of residents act in such irresponsible and unreasonable way like the members of HAK are in our community.

I have talked with numerous life-long residents that are dumbfounded and dismayed the members of HAK would treat fellow citizens and our community as a whole with such disdain and disrespect.

But unfortunately this is ... The Challenge We As A Community Now Face ...

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

Dear Mr. Brown,

I am writing you in regards to the Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) Citizen’s Initiative Petition that will be voted on by fellow Kirkwoodians this November.

This is the second Citizen’s Initiative Petition on the issue of a smoking ban from the same group of surrogate citizens. In each case, there was no community dialogue on how these proposals were drafted. There was no dialogue on how these proposals could impact our entire community. These surrogate citizens for various outside organizations chose to totally ignore fellow Kirkwoodians. They simply set about forcing a community-wide vote on their proposal by abusing the Citizen’s Initiative Petition process. Then, they used various methods of political manipulation to stack the deck against any opposition to their outside agenda. It is unfortunate that these surrogate citizens continue to act in such an irresponsible and self-serving way.

The challenge we as a community now face is the fact that HAK has already declared they will continue forcing their outside agenda on our community, even if the voters for a second time defeat their rehashed proposal.

At the August 6, 2009 City Council meeting I asked this question in my speech to the City Council:

“If they (HAK) are defeated AGAIN by the good citizens of Kirkwood … how many more times will these folks abuse the citizens’ initiative petition process and try to force their outside agenda on our entire community?”

We as a community were given a response by HAK member Michelle McDonald in her speech that followed mine when she said,

“I would like to respond to Joe Toenjes. We are going to keep doing this until it passes.”

Ms. McDonald and the rest of HAKs leadership have stood by that statement.

Kirkwoodians can easily conclude one thing from HAKs previous actions and their stated future intentions. HAK will continue to abuse the Citizens Initiative Petition process to force their outside agenda on the rest of our community. Sadly, these surrogate citizens want to create a revolving door of protracted “duke it out” battles against the clear will of the citizens of Kirkwood expressed by their vote. This kind of belligerent and unreasonable waging of a “war of attrition” on fellow citizens is unprecedented in Kirkwood’s history.

The past actions of HAK combined with their overbearing future agenda places a new and, I suspect, unforeseen burden on the administrative staff and the elected leadership of our community to protect the rights of other citizens in this matter.

Given these facts, I would like to know what steps will be taken to inform the citizens of Kirkwood in the future when any group submits a proposed Citizens Initiative Petition, Referendum or Recall and begins to form a Petitioner’s Committee?

It is clear there needs to be a concise and extremely time sensitive process developed to address this issue. The citizens of Kirkwood deserve the right to know what they are facing given the precedent set by HAK. I would hope you, our City Clerk Ms. Montano and the rest of the administrative staff would begin to offer various options in conjunction with our City Council to protect the rights of all Kirkwood citizens.

It is unfortunate that this issue was created by those in our community more desirous of demanding and abusing a right at the expense of fellow citizens, rather than being responsible and reasonable citizens.

Finally, I have several ideas about how to accomplish this goal. Yet, I am unsure how they would apply within running the day-to-day operations of our city with the unique and specific requirements that entails. I am more than willing to discuss my ideas with you or anyone else involved in trying to bring a solution to this unprecedented challenge our community is facing. If I can be of any assistance in this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Your Fellow Kirkwoodian,

Joe Toenjes
329 Rose Lane
Kirkwood, MO 63122

cc: Betty Montano, City Clerk
Kirkwood City Council

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

Note - You can see the video of Michelle McDonald's statement before the City Council at:

http://www.incitynews.com/stlc-kirkwood-/council-meetings/index.php

Just go to the August 6th meeting video. Let it download. It will take a few minutes. You can move the slider bar to the closest time-mark. You can view Michelle McDonald's statement starting around the 13:26 time-mark. If you are interested, you can view my speech to the City Council at about the 6:21 time-mark.

I will keep you updated on this issue as it proceeds.

If you want to express your thoughts on this issue, please hit the "Comment" link below.

Something Strange Happens In Kirkwood…

2009-08-15T19:47:00.004-05:00

Have you asked a member of HAK anything about their 2006 proposal and seen the reaction?

Have you noticed when you start asking members of HAK the right questions about the key players in their campaign to force their outside agenda on our community something strange happens?

When you start asking members of HAK questions about Pat Lindsey of Florissant, the Executive Director of Tobacco-Free Missouri, the state-wide group that in 2006 paid thousands of dollars for four different billboards at Kirkwood Rd. and Big Bend to support HAKs proposal during that election campaign, something strange happens in Kirkwood…

When you start asking members of HAK questions about how Pat Lindsey wants to “duke it out” (Pat’s direct quote: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-2669.113117_Smoke_Free_Is_No_Brainer.html) in Kirkwood with our fellow citizens and our fellow business owners, but will not do the same in her own community of Florissant, something strange happens in Kirkwood…

When you start asking members of HAK questions about HAK’s fellow signature gatherers for their alleged Kirkwood Citizen Initiative Petition, people like Baker Symes of Webster Groves, MO or Mike Doran of Fenton, MO, something strange happens in Kirkwood…

When you start asking members of HAK questions about Charles Gatton of Ballwin, MO, the former Ballwin City Council member who was not re-elected by the citizens after he shoved a smoking-ban upon his community, then he comes to Kirkwood to shove an even more unreasonable smoking-ban upon Kirkwood with HAKs 2006 proposal, something strange happens in Kirkwood…

When you start asking members of HAK questions about Richard Hyer of Troy, MO, the “co-circulator” (Jean’s own statement: http://joekirkwood.blogspot.com/2009/08/two-question-to-kirkwood-city-council.html) with HAKs own Jean Loemker for HAKs alleged “Kirkwood Citizens Initiative Petition” from 2006, something strange happens in Kirkwood…

When you start asking members of HAK questions about Martin Pion of Ferguson, MO, the founder of Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution (MO GASP), the foremost anti-smoking group in Missouri, who also circulated HAKs supposed Kirkwood Citizens Initiative Petition, something strange happens in Kirkwood…

The members of HAK quickly do the whole gag of …

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

… like the Three Stooges would do whenever they got caught red-handed.

The members of HAK pretend like they have no clue about their fellow campaign members when they are in Kirkwood. They pretend they do not know … who these people are … or what these people stand for … or what these people have done to shove their outside agenda on our entire community. It is amazing the reaction in Kirkwood!

But, what is it like outside of Kirkwood?

Well that is a totally different story. These very same folks that HAK members supposedly have no clue about are HAKs good ol’ chums outside of Kirkwood!

See what we find here on Martin Pion’s own MO GASP web site in the picture he took at the July 28th St. Louis County Council meeting:
http://mogasp.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/second-st-louis-county-council-meeting-on-smoke-free-air-bill/

Martin Pion of MO GASP took this snapshot of (L to R) Pat Lindsey of Tobacco-Free Missouri with HAKs own Jean Loemker and HAKs own Michelle McDonald along with another gentleman. Sure looks like they know each other in Clayton. Plus, notice three of the folks in the picture are even wearing the same blue button.

Interesting … when you start asking the right questions in Kirkwood …

Something Strange Happens!

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

If you have a take on the issue please hit the "Comment" link below.

Two Questions to the Kirkwood City Council

2009-08-11T00:43:00.018-05:00

Below is a copy of my prepared speech before the Kirkwood City Council on 08-06-09. I presented to the City Council a packet with several different pieces of information that prove how incredibly misleading the members of Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) were at the last City Council meeting. I can not believe these folks continue to try to pretend they were not and are not surrogates for numerous State-wide anti-smoking organizations.

The facts presented below show they have been surrogates citizens from the very beginning of the fight they picked in our community. Sadly, they are more interested in misleading our entire community while they try to force this outside agenda on us.

======================================================================
Tonight I present you a packet of simple information.

All of you have this 2-page handout at the top of your pack.

(Note: The packet contained the “Print Screen” of the Tree Logo on the Healthy Air for Kirkwood Web Site. Here is a reduced version for the sake of brevity.)

(Note: The next page was the scan of the Tree Logo from the Letterhead of HAK’s previous group in 2006, when they called themselves “Citizen’s for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood.” Here is a reduced version for the sake of brevity.)

Same logo tree, same base members … but somehow not the same group? Is that what they were claiming at the last City Council meeting … and they keep claiming?

Now please read from this 2-page pack the quote from October 19, 2006 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Deb Cotton:

“I can assure you that this movement is not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders," as purported on a flyer distributed by those opposing the ordinance.”

Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3141.113117_Make_Kirkwood_Healthier_With_Prop_1_Vote.html

Now please read the quote from November 2, 2006 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Ingrid Florman:

“As a founding member of Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood, I would like to set the record straight that our group is comprised solely of Kirkwood residents. … We are not supported or funded by any outside special interest groups or organizations.”

Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3248.113117_Prop_1_A_Local_Campaign.html

Now please read the quote from October 26, 2006 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Franklin McCallie:

“It is unfortunate that Kirkwood citizens of good will are at odds over Smoke Free Kirkwood.”

Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3197.113117_Voters_Owe_Children_SmokeFree_Restaurants.html

Now please read the quote from July 23, 2009 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Allan Cotton:

“Sadly, a small but vocal minority has decided to try to defeat this citizens' initiative effort through empty accusations and baseless personal attacks on their fellow citizens.”

Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-16677.113118_SmokeFree_Initiative_Is_True_Citizen_Effort.html

Now please look at this 6-page packet with some of the petition signatures from their 2006 proposal.

(Note: Once again for the sake of brevity, I only included the 2006 Petition Circulators name and signature section. Plus, I have only included one page from each of them. Keep in mind this is for a supposedly Kirkwood Citizens Initiative Petition proposal. The facts are these 5 individuals from outside of Kirkwood made up 20% of all the Petition Circulators. These 5 individuals from outside of Kirkwood gathered over 15% of all the signatures of Kirkwood voters needed to place that proposal on a Kirkwood ballot. This is clearly showing the outside organizations these folks represent were directly and intimately involved in HAKs 2006 Citizens’ Initiative Petition.)

(Note: Mike Doran has not brought a smoking-ban proposal to his own town of Fenton, but he will try to bring one to Kirkwood?)

(Note: Baker Symes is a resident of Webster Groves. He was also the musician for HAKs campaign kick-off event at Station Plaza on near the end of June. No one was drawn to the event. He too has failed to bring a smoking-ban proposal to his community, but will work on bringing one twice to Kirkwood?)

(Note: Charles Gatton is the former Ballwin City Alderman who forced through a smoking ban in his community. He was not re-elected for another term.)

(Note: Martin Pion is the founder of Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution – MO GASP. According to his web site MO GASP is one of the foremost grass roots advocacy groups on this issue in the state. See more at: http://mogasp.wordpress.com/

(Note: Richard Hyer, from Troy, MO, was the leader of Lincoln County Smoke-Free Workplaces. He was a “Co-Circulator” with Ms. Jean Loemker of HAK.)

As you can see there were “outside special interest groups or organizations” involved with HAK from the beginning.

As you can see these folks were not “citizens of good will” on this issue in our community.

As you can see these are not “accusations” and they are not “empty.” They are not “attacks” and they are not “baseless” or “personal.”

These folks were never forced to misrepresent themselves or their organization to our entire community in this way. This did not need to happen. The choice was theirs’.

So, I ask you two questions tonight City Council:

How many more times will these folks be given free reign to misrepresent who and what they really are to our entire community as they once AGAIN force their outside agenda on our entire community?

If they are defeated AGAIN by the good citizens of Kirkwood … how many more times will these folks abuse the citizens’ initiative petition process and try to force their outside agenda on our entire community?

You were elected to serve our entire community … I would hope you would protect our tax dollars and our rights by finding out the answers to these two questions. Then, let us all know the answers before you place this on a ballot.

Remember … This did not need to happen. The choice was theirs’.

They could easily according to our City Charter choose to withdraw their proposal and not continue to act in this way in our community.

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

What do you think about the issue? Click the "Comments" link below.

HAKs Pointless And Wasteful “War Of Attrition”

2009-07-19T08:39:00.005-05:00

Below is a copy of my speech from Thursday's City Council Meeting. What a meeting. I have not seen displays like the ones from HAKs members in a long while at City Hall.

Here is a link to the video of the meeting:

http://www.incitynews.com/stlc-kirkwood-/council-meetings/index.php

I can not wait to present over the next few postings the information that HAK presented for:

Why these surrogate citizens are once again singling out and targeting our community?

Why these surrogate citizens continue to abuse our citizen initiative process with their outside agenda?

What are the next possibilities for their “duke it out” battles to be done under the ruse of “public health” and “protecting the health of the worker” in Kirkwood?

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

Tonight I ask our City Council to take no action on the HAK proposal that is before you. You have that option provided to you by our City Charter.

Why …

Very simply from its inception in 2006 this smoking ban issue has never been a Kirkwood issue. It was forced on our community via the Citizens Initiative Petition process by surrogate citizens working for outside forces.

In the words of their own leader Pat Lindsey, Director of Tobacco-Free Missouri, these folks came to our community – with those surrogate citizens in tow – for a political battle. They were going to "duke it out" against our supposedly "stubborn" City Council and our supposedly "stubborn" business community. They threw everything they could at our community. They set the agenda. They had the billboard advertising. They had the outside campaign workers.

Who could stop them?

Yet, they forgot about one thing – the good citizens of Kirkwood.

The citizens persevered, spoke and said “NO.”

HAK lost. It was time to move on.

But, now with HAKs rehashed proposal it is clear all these folks no longer want just a political “duke it out” battle anymore. They do not want to work with the citizens of our community. This time they want more.

They want a pointless and wasteful “war of attrition” against our City Council, against our business community and .... now against all the good citizens of Kirkwood who did the right thing for their community and stood up against them in 2006.

How many more times City Council? How many more times?

Please take no action on HAKs proposal. Please send a clear message they will not run rough-shod over our community once again.

But, most importantly … give the citizens of Kirkwood the possibility of a real say in the Citizens Initiative Petition process.

The Choose Kirkwood – Informed Health Choice proposal gives the citizens of our entire community – against smoking or not – a choice:

- A choice for a common-sense approach to the issue of smoking bans.
- A choice for private citizens to make their own health decisions
- A choice for private business owners to make their own business plans

This time around the citizens need you to stand up for our rights to have a choice on this issue. We ask you to Choose Kirkwood.

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

I continue to urge the members of HAK to withdraw their pointless and wasteful petition. Sit down at a table of community dialogue with our City Council and other interested parties to resolve this issue within our community.

Save the community the tax dollars they are demanding to be spent by forcing a vote with the citizen initiative process. HAK already spent over $10,000 of our tax dollars on their issue of a smoking ban for the voters of Kirkwood to decide in 2006.

The HAK folks in 2006 stacked the deck against our entire community. HAK got caught at it with their billboards and their outside campaign workers for their supposedly "Kirkwood issue." HAK did not withdraw their petition like they easily could have. No, the members of HAK arrogantly played their hand as surrogate citizens for numerous outside groups.

HAK was dealt a defeat by the voters. They said "NO."

Now HAK is screaming “Do Over!”

How is that fair to our entire community?

What is your take? Please post at the "Comments" button below.

Your Opportunity To Be Heard - Thursday's City Council Meeting

2009-07-14T08:07:00.005-05:00

Hello Folks,

I hope you will come to this Thursday's City Council Meeting (7pm at City Hall) and speak out against the rehashed smoking ban being proposed by the members of Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK). HAK can easily withdraw their petition and not put our community through another contentious battle over a smoking ban like they did in 2006.

I want to remind you of a few facts:

The core members of HAK are the same core members of Citizens for a Smoke Free Kirkwood (CSFK). CSFK was the surrogate citizen group for numerous state-wide, anti-smoking groups that tried to force a dictatorial smoking ban on our community in 2006 via the citizens' intitiative process. The voters of Kirkwood rejected that plan.

Here is what Pat Lindsey, the Director of Tobacco Free Missouri said in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag regarding the November 2006 smoking ban proposition. Keep in mind Ms. Lindsey's group spent thousands of dollars paying for FOUR different billboards supporting CSFKs smoke free agenda. Here is that letter (my bold added):

Smoke Free Is “No Brainer”

Citizens for a Smoke Free Kirkwood should be commended for doing what the St. Louis County Council failed to do. They are taking the issue of clean indoor air and smoke-free workplaces to the voters in November.

The St. Louis County Council could have helped these advocates and the residents of the other 92 municipalities by putting one smoke-free ordinance on the November ballot. Instead, concerned citizens in each municipality will have to duke it out with stubborn legislators and business people who have been convinced revenues will decrease if businesses are smoke free.

Why are people fighting for the right to pollute the air? This issue is a no-brainer. Everyone has the right to breathe clean air and legislators have the duty to insure that right. The solution is simple. Smokers can take their toxic pollutants outside and everyone will be able to breathe a lot easier inside.

Pat Lindsey
Florissant
August 24, 2006

Link to Mailbag letter: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-2669.113117_Smoke_Free_Is_No_Brainer.html

Two things Ms. Lindsey forgot to tell you in her letter was that she wasted your tax dollars paying for a vote so she could "duke it out" with you and your community over her issue. The members of CSFK-HAK tried to run roughshod over our community with outside support like this and more.

Now they are back to rehash their wasteful and pointless political battle. It is time for the members of CSFK-HAK to quit pushing their outside agenda on our community. It is time for them to sit down along with our City Council and other interested parties to work out a proposal that works for our entire community.

I hope you will urge the members of CSFK-HAK to with work with our entire community on Thursday night at the City Council meeting. The meeting starts at 7pm, so arrive early to get a seat and fill out a comment card.

Have a great day!
Joe

Public Challenge To Franklin McCallie

2009-07-02T23:55:00.002-05:00

Here is my speech to the City Council tonight. In it I publicly challenge HAK committee member Franklin McCallie to do what he has proclaimed he has wanted in Kirkwood for so many years.

-----------------------------------------

Tonight I wish to talk about the one key element that has been missing in Kirkwood when it comes to the two smoking ban proposals we have faced and are facing. It is the core aspect of the word “community” that was ignored in 2006 by the proponents of the smoking ban, which lead to their proposal’s defeat by Kirkwood’s voters. This core aspect of “community” has once again been ignored by Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) as they try to force a rehashed smoking ban on all of Kirkwood.

The One Key Element Missing – The Core Aspect Ignored – Is Dialogue.

I find this fact interesting when I review the list of HAK committee members. The new list is not much different than the list of residents that forced the 2006 proposal on our community. What is most surprising is the one name that shows up on each list. Both lists contain the name of our publicity seeking former Kirkwood High School Principal, Franklin McCallie.

Who can forget Franklin’s various calls for community “dialogue” about issues over the years? Who can forget his whirlwind publicity tour after the City Hall tragedy where he was referred to by an adoring local press with such glowing statements as the, “Lincolnesque ... self-appointed … liberal conscience of a conservative community” (St. Louis Magazine, May, 2008). As a founding member of CFUH he was the community activist “promoting respect, acceptance, and reconciliation among all citizens in our Kirkwood community through reflective dialogue.” Franklin has constantly proclaimed to the media over the years how our community needs “dialogue” to solve issues.

Yet, in 2006 there was no “dialogue” offered for our community by Franklin and his cohorts with their dictatorial smoking ban. They had the help of numerous State-wide anti-smoking groups with lots of money for advertising and lots of campaign workers from around the state to force their “duke it out” battle on Kirkwood. Even after stacking the deck against our entire community in this manner, Franklin and his cohorts still lost with their uncontested 2006 proposal.

Here we are less than 3 years later and Franklin and his cohorts are forcing another dictatorial smoking ban on our entire community. This time their proposal will be contested by the citizens of Choose Kirkwood and their proposal. We are working to engage all interested parties in Kirkwood in the process.

Franklin’s pattern is demand – Dialogue, Dialogue, Dialogue … Except – where it does not suit him.

I have twice privately reached out to Franklin for dialogue on this issue and was rejected. On Saturday, as HAKs event crumbled before them, with no one showing up for their big kick-off, I privately went up to HAK President, Mary Murphy-Overmann and asked for dialogue on this issue and was rejected.

From Franklin’s private rejections it is clear, his very public proclamations that dialogue is how we need to resolve issues in our community were just empty, hollow words – just sound bites – for consumption and regurgitation by the press. It seems dialogue is only for certain issues in Kirkwood, but definitely not the dictatorial proposals Franklin and his cohorts want to force on our entire community.

Tonight, I publicly challenge Franklin to live up the press he has created about himself. I challenge him to act like the image of the “Lincolnesque ... self-appointed … liberal conscience of our conservative community” he has fashioned. I challenge him to put his smoking ban issue where his mouth has been for so long – sit down with other interested parties to find a solution from our community – for our community. I challenge him to lay aside his monologue and prove dialogue is the way to resolve issues in Kirkwood.

I have since June 4th tried to keep our community from having to unnecessarily waste time, energy and ever tightened financial resources on another pointless, political battle over the smoking ban issue. I hope you, our City Council, will work with the members of Choose Kirkwood and other interested parties to provide our community the dialogue Franklin has proclaimed he has wanted for so many years.

-----------------------------------------

I can only hope Franklin and the rest of HAK will decide to work with the rest of Kirkwood and come to a solution - from our community - for our community.

Post you thoughts below by hitting the "Comments" link below.

Thank Yous And The Response Not Printed

2009-06-28T14:11:00.003-05:00

The latest edition of the Webster-Kirkwood Times did not carry the Mailbag letter I submitted in response to the June 18th Mailbag letter from CFSK-HAK spokesperson Reese Forbes.

But, when you have to make a choice between printing my very good letter and the brilliant, on-point letter written by McArthur Bakery’s own Dave McArthur, I have to say the Times Editors made the right call. Thanks Times Editors! Yes, thanks!

But, more importantly – THANK YOU … DAVE McARTHUR – for giving a damn enough about our wonderful Kirkwood businesses and the rest of our community to take such a public and poignant stand!

If you missed Dave’s letter here is the link to his Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter:http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-16585.113118_Government_Regulation_Of_The_Unwilling.html

-------------------------------------

Since, I hate to let a very good letter go to waste, I present for you my response to CFSK-HAK spokesperson Reese Forbes’ June 18th Mailbag letter:

“Choose Kirkwood” a fair, democratic and inclusive alternative.

What is the point in citizens like Reese Forbes and a few others proposing another smoking ban in Kirkwood?

I have to ask this question after reading Reese Forbes’ letter last week. He claims their rehashed proposal “does not ‘Ban Smoking In Kirkwood,’ because smoking would still be allowed in 99.65 percent of the entire area of Kirkwood.” I have no idea how he came up with that figure.

But, it sure shows to what extreme lengths these anti-smoking folks will go. In 2006 these folks along with activists from numerous state-wide anti-smoking groups descended on our community, grossly misled us about their dictatorial proposal, forced a vote via the citizens initiative petition process and spent thousands of dollars on four billboards and other campaigning to ban smoking in Kirkwood. Their proposal failed.

Now they want to pick another “duke it out” battle by forcing their rehashed dictatorial smoking ban proposal on our community for allegedly ONLY 0.35% of Kirkwood?

Just like in 2006, these surrogate citizens of outside anti-smoking forces have refused to allow any other part of our community to have any say in the drafting of a law that affects us, our business community and our tax dollars. They are trying to force another vote via the citizens’ initiative petition process, rather than sitting down to work out a sensible solution.

A group of only Kirkwood citizens, called “Choose Kirkwood” has decided to intervene before another “duke it out” battle starts all over again. “Choose Kirkwood” is presently working with other interested parties in our community to bring a "Kirkwood Informed Health Choice" proposal. Our goal is to provide a fair, democratic and inclusive alternative.

Our goal is to bring a common-sense approach to smoking restrictions - from our community ... for our community. Find out more at: www.choosekirkwood.org

-------------------------------------

If you would like to review what CFSK-HAK spokesperson Reese Forbes said, here is the link to his June 18th Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-16556.113118_Does_Not_Ban_Smoking.html

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

Give your take on the issue. Hit the "Comments" link below ...

If They Are Not Surrogates ...

2009-06-26T07:54:00.003-05:00

.
In case you missed the article on the proposed smoking ban in Kirkwood written by Phil Sutin at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch here is a link to the article:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/01121987BF304A24862575DD0077A28C?OpenDocument

I was surprised to see the smoking ban folks selected a new spokeswoman for their group, Mrs. Debra Hacke Cotton. In 2006 she showed an extreme inability to present the facts about her smoking ban in a forthright manner to our community.

Who can forget Mrs. Cotton’s Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter from October 19, 2006 where she said about Citizens for Smoke-Free Kirkwood’s (CFSK) proposal,

“This initiative is being brought forth to the voters by a committed group of Kirkwood citizens, who care deeply about their neighbors and their community. Having recently become involved in supporting this issue and Citizens for Smoke-Free Kirkwood, I can assure you that this movement is not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders," as purported on a flyer distributed by those opposing the ordinance.” (my bold)

Mrs. Cotton’s full letter can be found here:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3141.113117_Make_Kirkwood_Healthier_With_Prop_1_Vote.html

Yes, Mrs. Cotton wrote this letter of “assurance” while there were not one, not two, not three but FOUR billboards at the intersection of Big Bend and Kirkwood Rd, paid for by the state-wide group Tobacco-Free Missouri.

The thousands of dollars spent by Tobacco-Free Missouri for those billboards was not the act of a "special interest group" trying to force their outside agenda on our community?

Now according to Phil Sutin’s article Mrs. Cotton and her fellow surrogate citizens are going to hold a rally at Station Plaza this Saturday from 10am to 2pm to "clean the air." They are going to have music provided by Baker Symes of Webster Groves.

That is an interesting name of a Webster Groves’ citizen to see once again involved in forcing a smoking ban proposal on the community of Kirkwood.

Mrs. Cotton should know that name, since Mr. Baker Symes of Webster Groves was one of five anti-smoking zealots from outside our community who were conscripted by Ms. Jean Loemker to gather signatures from Kirkwood citizens for their 2006 citizens initiative petition.

Yes, the last time these surrogates citizens for outside anti-smoking groups forced a vote via a citizens’ initiative petition it was “fueled by outsiders” like Mr. Baker Symes. Even though Mrs. Cotton “assured” us this was not the case. Those are the facts regardless of what Mrs. Cotton wishes to exert on our community then or now.

The interest grows even more in the name Baker Symes when you realize it has not been used in relation to a smoking ban being forced on his own community of Webster Groves. Webster has a citizen's initiative process provided in their City Charter. Yet, why has Mr. Symes failed to abuse his City Charter and shove that agenda on his own community with the help of his cohorts in Kirkwood and the anti-smoking groups they serve from around the State of Missouri? I guess Mr. Symes is more interested in making the anti-smoking zealot "duke it out" battle count to be: Kirkwood 2 / Webster 0.

Now these same folks in Kirkwood want to pretend their new group in not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders?"

These same folks want us to believe they are not surrogates for outside anti-smoking organizations from throughout Missouri?

If they are not surrogates, then why did they once again fail to work within our community to develop a smoking ban proposal?

If they are not surrogates, then why did they draft a proposal that other members of our community had no say in?

If they are not surrogates, then why are they once again forcing a vote on this issue by abusing the citizen’s initiative process?

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

What's your take? Post your thoughts by hitting the "Comments" link below ...
.

The Claytonization of Kirkwood – The New Brand

2009-06-19T00:15:00.008-05:00

.
Below is my speech from last night's City Council meeting ...

I sat in utter disbelief at the last City Council meeting as I watched Ms. Loemker re-establish her pattern of misinformation to you our City Council and to our community as a whole.

It is clear the “duke it out” battle Ms. Loemker and her allies like Ms. Pat Linsdey of Tobacco-Free Missouri (T-FMo) are going to wage in our community will be filled with similar disingenuous statements as their 2006 campaign was rife with.

Ms. Loemker came before this body and tried to extol the virtues of the process in Clayton. She talked about how fair and equitable the process was in how Clayton came up with their alleged smoking ban. She even invited us to come and see the process unfold. She alluded to the idea that we in Kirkwood could be more “progressive.” Yes, Ms. Loemker is all for her own brand of the Claytonization of Kirkwood.

Yet, is there really a “smoking ban” in Clayton as Ms. Anna Forder reported in her Webster-Kirkwood Times article? No – not at all.

The facts show there were multiple re-writes by the Clayton City Council to ensure a certain … shall I say … Ritzy establishment … would be excluded from their alleged “smoking ban.”

Yes, in the City of Clayton if you are rich and powerful, then the powers that be will bend over backwards to ensure you can smoke and imbibe in adult beverages no matter if an employee has to be exposed to second-hand smoke or not.

So just how is the Clayton City Council’s alleged smoking ban treating all parts of its community fairly and equitably? How could anyone think this kind of legislative hypocrisy is “progressive” or needed in our community?

I guess if every bar in Kirkwood that wanted to cater to smoking patrons just added “RC” in front of their name, then they would be exempted and acceptable to Ms. Loemker with her new brand of the Claytonization of Kirkwood?

It is interesting how in Ms. Loemker’s view it is “progressive” for a certain bar in Clayton to get an exemption, but in Kirkwood our only choice is whatever she and her anti-smoking allies from throughout the state of Missouri have already decided for us.

Ms. Loemker and her group of surrogate citizens have once again refused to allow any other part of our community to have any say in the drafting of a smoking ban that affects us all. It proves not a single one of them is interested in working with our community as a whole.

For this group to once again try to use the Citizens Initiative Petition process to force their one-sided proposal on our community is an abuse of that very process. It is an abuse of the community good faith and trust our City Charter was founded upon. It is an abuse of our City government. It is an abuse of our business community. It is an abuse of our tax dollars. It is an abuse of the clear decision made by voters in November 2006.

I once again call upon the leaders of Citizens for a Smoke Free Kirkwood (CSFK) or Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) or whatever name they want to call themselves next, to do the right thing and the honorable thing for our entire community and withdraw their Initiative Petition.

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

I hope fellow Kirkwoodians would echo my call for these folks to put aside their pointless, political battle in our community.

You can post your thoughts on the subject, by hitting the "Comments" link below ...
.

How Would You Like To Blow $10,000 Without Even Trying?

2009-06-06T16:22:00.017-05:00

Hello Folks,

I happen to be in downtown Kirkwood today dropping off my bike at Bicycles of Kirkwood for some new add-ons. The black bike rack is going be such a great addition to my total “old school” look.

As I was scooting doing Kirkwood Road in my pickup there is Jean Loemker of CFSK and now HAK getting a signature from a gentleman … I can only imagine for her and Tobacco Free Missouri’s and GASP's new smoking ban proposal in Kirkwood.

And the first question that came to my mind was …

I wonder if the poor guy that just signed Tobacco Free Missouri’s and GASP's petition being circulated by Ms. Loemker knew she was really asking him …

How Would You Like To Blow $10,000 Without Even Trying?

Yes, if you get down to the reality of it …every signature on that petition is like a Kirkwoodian going to City Hall and demanding the City Administration waste at least $10,000 of their own tax dollars on an issue the voters rejected November 2006.

I sure hope you read that last sentence carefully … especially the two most important words.

Do you know what the two most important words are?

They are “at least.”

“At least" are the two most important words, because this is an off-election year. So, St. Louis County is not going to be holding as many elections this year.

Since these outside groups chose to target Kirkwood once again for a rehash of their proposal, but in an off-election year … (for strategic reasons we will discuss later) … they run the possibility of our tax dollars carrying the entire bill from the St. Louis County Election Board for this election in Kirkwood.

The last time our tax dollars paid the bill for a vote in Kirkwood in an off-election year was the 2003 Ward Proposal. The bill from the St. Louis County Election Board for that November 2003 vote was over $19,000. Keep in mind that was 2003, so the costs could be higher.

So, please think about what you are really doing if someone walks up to you and asks you to sign a petition to ban smoking in Kirkwood.

These folks are really coming up to you and asking you ...

How Would You Like To Blow $10,000 Without Even Trying?

Do not forget to do the neighborly thing and let all your family and friends in Kirkwood know exactly what they are really being asked when these folks hand them the rehashed smoke-free petition.

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

Post your thoughts by clicking on the Comments link below.

This Does Not Need To Happen. The Choice Is Yours.

2009-06-04T23:01:00.008-05:00

Yes, it is confirmed “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood” is back with yet another proposal they are getting signatures for. The defeat of their November 2006 proposal was not good enough for them. They want to keep rehashing this issue over and over. This time they have reformulated themselves as “Healthy Air for Kirkwood.”

Yes, at this time these folks and their coalition of numerous anti-smoking organizations from throughout Missouri are targeting our community for yet another pointless political battle.

Below is my snail-mail letter I sent to these folks. I used it as my speech at tonight’s City Council meeting.

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

Healthy Air for Kirkwood
1271 Oakshire Lane
Kirkwood, MO 63122

June 4, 2009

Dear Members of Healthy Air for Kirkwood,

As a fellow citizen of Kirkwood, I am writing to you in response to your Initiative Petition for a Smoke-Free Ordinance you have filed at City Hall. I ask you at this time to do the right thing and the honorable thing for our entire community and withdraw this Initiative Petition.

Your reformulated group from “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood” to “Healthy Air for Kirkwood” is akin to nothing more than a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. You are the same group serving outside interests as before. So nothing has changed. The issue of smoking versus non-smoking is the same as before. So nothing has changed. The ability of patrons to not support smoking establishments is the same as before. So nothing has changed. The need for you and your fellow anti-smoking activists from across Missouri to take this state-wide issue to Jefferson City is the same as before. So nothing has changed.

For your group to once again try to use the Initiative Petition process is an abuse of that very process. When looking at the facts and the history of your group this Initiative Petition is an abuse of the community good faith and trust our City Charter was founded upon. It is an abuse of our City government. It is an abuse of our business community. It is an abuse of our tax dollars. It is an abuse of the clear decision made by voters in November 2006.

Please, therefore, do not continue to waste your fellow Kirkwoodians’ valuable time and their ever tightened resources on this issue. Have the conscience and the courage to do the right thing and the honorable thing by taking this fight to where it belongs – Jefferson City.

I will remind you of this fact: Anti-smoking activists in 33 states have been able to get fair and equitable state-wide smoking bans passed. So, you have no excuse not to avail yourselves of the legislative process provided in Jefferson City. There is no reason for you and the numerous state-wide anti-smoking coalitions you are working for to continue to abuse our community, our tax dollars and our Initiative Petition process with this issue here in Kirkwood.

If you refuse to withdraw this Initiative Petition, then you will force a citizens group to be formed to defeat your wasteful and unnecessary, rehashed proposal. Fellow Kirkwoodians, like myself, will not sit idly by as you continue forcing outside proposals on our community. This does not need to happen. The choice is yours.

Your Fellow Kirkwoodian,

Joe Toenjes

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

Given the impromptu comments of Ms. Jean Loemker, the leader of “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood", to the City Council in response to my speech, it is safe to say our community has confirmation that …

“Your reformulated group from “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood” to “Healthy Air for Kirkwood” is akin to nothing more than a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. You are the same group serving outside interests as before. So nothing has changed.”

If you have a response please click on the "Comment" link below.

Letter to Park Board President Bob Sears

2009-06-04T00:25:00.007-05:00

Dear Bob,

After reading the May 29, 2009 article in the Webster-Kirkwood Times on “Quinnette Cemetery” I was struck by your two quotes in the article,

"This property is unique and historic," said Sears. "It really deserves the respect and care it's receiving now after decades of neglect by everyone except a few descendents who wanted to be sure it was not forgotten ...The cemetery has a careful and good custodian in the park board." …

Sears said some community members were concerned that the cemetery had been designated a park, but Sears said putting the cemetery under the care of the park board was the most practical way to ensure it is taken care of.

"That's what was important to me," Sears said. "No more sale to a developer. Once it gets into private hands, you don't know what they're going to do to it. Nobody should expect any changes other than the ones we just talked about," Sears said, referring to the new signage, the walkway and the two memorials.

First, I have to wonder why you made the statement, "That's what was important to me," Sears said. "No more sale to a developer. Once it gets into private hands, you don't know what they're going to do to it.”

I presently am unfamiliar with what “important” actions were done by you or the Park Board while you have served on it to take or keep the Quinette Cemetery property out of private hands or from a developer? Just how was the property ever going to a developer when it has been owned by the City of Kirkwood since 2001?

Yet, I do know the history of how Mayor Swoboda along with City Council secured and protected that historic and hallowed ground for our community. It was not until more than 2 years after this achievement that I got to know and become friends with the Mayor. But, even then he was still working with other dedicated citizen volunteers on commissions like Landmarks and Architectural Review, in addition to Parks to see Quinette’s restoration and preservation was moving forward. He was so thankful for all the hard working, teenage volunteers of Youth-In-Action, who cleared portions of the cemetery. Plus, the hard work of members of Kirkwood’s VFW Post to bring proper honor to the veterans buried there. Mayor Swoboda not only set in motion the protecting of Quinette from any possible development, but he also worked hard to rally many other resources in our community to do their part, thus making Quinette Cemetery that much better.

Just to present the facts, here is the record of the vote taken. It shows exactly who among our elected officials in 2001 cared enough to ensure Quinette Cemetery was put into public hands:

July 19, 2001 – Resolution 69-2001A – Roll Call Vote as Follows:

Council Member Godi --- “No”
Council Member Griffin --- “Yes”
Council Member Lynch --- “Yes”
Council Member McDonnell --- “Yes”
Council Member Noonan --- “Yes”
Mayor Swoboda --- “Yes”
Council Member Ward --- “Yes”

It is interesting to note that none of the six City Council members that voted “Yes” were/are members of any of the alleged Greenspace or Restoration or Preservation groups in our community. Yet, these public servants knew how historic and important it was to preserve the hallowed ground of Quinette Cemetery. Their actions speak louder than any words. Their actions speak louder than any endorsements from in-name-only groups that have for years produced little to nothing in the way of additional Greenspace, increased Restoration or productive Preservation for our community.

Given your quote, therefore, could you please enlighten me and the readers of this blog with what “important” actions were done by you or the Park Board while you have served on it to take or keep the Quinette Cemetery property out of private hands or from a developer?

Your Fellow Kirkwoodian,

Joe Toenjes

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

If you would like to make a comment, then hit the "Comment" link below.
.

Yet Again?

2009-06-02T02:32:00.006-05:00

I happened to pick the RFT on Sunday after getting some breakfast ... to read the latest restaurant review. I did not get a chance to read it until late Sunday night.

I noticed the main article was on area smoking bans. So, I decided to take a read.

This sentence in the article caught my eye …

“Separately, the cities of Clayton, Kirkwood and Wildwood are all looking at potential bans.”

Wow ... when has this gone on in Kirkwood?

Could it be true … the Riverfront Times has better information about what’s going on in Kirkwood than the “Your Hometown Newspaper” – the Webster-Kirkwood Times?

Could it be true … Tom Finkel’s crew out scooped Scoop Corrigan’s crew?

But, most importantly as I asked in a Mailbag letter back in February …

“Is Jean Loemker with her letter trying to lay the ground work for Kirkwood to once again be the battleground for an agenda she and her cohorts need to take to legislators in Jefferson City? Do Kirkwoodians really want our community and its businesses to once again be abused like meaningless pawns and subjected to another pointless political battle?”

Well if this is true ... it looks like Jean Loemker and the rest of her well-financed, anti-smoking zealots from throughout the state are going to descend once again on our community to force their agenda on us.

Why does our community and its businesses need to be their pawns yet again?

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

What is your take? Hit the "Comment" link below ...

Great Rivers Greenway’s proposed walking/biking trail for Dee Koestering Park

2009-05-30T00:59:00.006-05:00

Hello Fellow Kirkwodians ...

The Kirkwood Park Board and their Trail Subcommittee presently have before them a proposal from Great Rivers Greenways to build a walking/biking trail in Dee Koestering Park ... also known as the Meramec Highlands Quarry Park. The Dee Koestering Park is a 9.5 acre passive park located at the top of Marshall Road.

The City of Kirkwood’s Park System page describes the park as “a nature park with walking trails; site of the historic Meramec Highlands Quarry. Many large stones, left over from the quarrying operation that operated at the site over 100 year ago remain visible today. Acquisition was partially funded by a grant from the Land and Water Conversation Fund.” (I suspect that is “Conservation Fund” – I sent correction to City Hall.)

If you have not gone to this park, then you really need to go. But, be ready for a good strong walk. Think walking down Marshall Road on foot, meandering around for a good long while, then hoofing back up that little bugger of a hill! Now add a lovely wooded setting with some impressive boulders and rock formations, plus the remnants of an old quarry. It is just a great little passive park.

After 18 months of work on this proposal, the Park Board has had some public sessions on the proposal. I have some very deep reservations about any park going from passive to active with this kind of proposal. Simple natural settings to get away from it all are hard to find these days. What information that I could readily find on the City’s web site and Great Rivers Greenway’s web site leaves a bit to be desired. No decent view of the proposed trail in relation to the Park. No real information about what this trail is going to cost taxpayers. The Park Board and Great Rivers Greenway both exist, thanks only to our tax dollars.

So yesterday, I sent the below email to Murray Pounds - Parks & Recreation Director, Bob Sears – Park Board President and the 6 members of the City Council that have email addresses.

Hopefully all citizens can get better informed about this proposal if my three requests are fulfilled.

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

Dear Members of the Kirkwood Parks Trail Committee and the Kirkwood Park Board,

I finally got a chance to look at Great Rivers Greenway’s proposed walking/biking trail for Dee Koestering Park. This trail is supposed to link the walking/biking trail that presently ends in Greentree Park at the bottom of Marshall Rd., bring it out of that valley, through the streets of Kirkwood to the Grant’s Trail trailhead on the edge of Kirkwood near Holmes Ave. and I-44.

As a citizen with a regular job trying to make it to a 4:30pm Trail Subcommittee meeting is nearly impossible. I did take the time to look at all the information I could readily find on the proposal. I first went to Great Rivers Greenway’s web site and found nothing of substance. Then, I went through everything provided on the City of Kirkwood’s web site. I reviewed the maps and schematics provided. I read the citizen comments that were collected. I familiarized myself once again with the Park Master Plan.

I found the information provided about this proposal woefully inadequate. Once I pieced together the two maps provided on the City’s web site, then fully ascertained how the proposed path actually goes through Dee Koestering Park, I was shocked by this proposal. Neither overlay map when pieced together provides a complete and clear picture of all the boundaries of Dee Koestering Park and its various neighbors in relationship to the trail that is being proposed. This failure to present a full view clearly distorts the impact of this proposal on the Park. I would love to see a private developer (much maligned by some in our community) try to slide a proposal that is as poorly put together as this one is before our City Council for review. Given the vast and overwhelming landscape issues in this proposal, it would likely not see the light of day in its presented form before that body. Which makes me wonder why the Kirkwood Parks Trail Committee and the Kirkwood Park Board failed to demand a proper representation of the proposal from Great Rivers Greenway, a public developer, before it was presented to citizens?

In addition, there is no cost estimate coming from Great Rivers Greenway for the Dee Koestering Park portion of the proposed trail. How can Kirkwood citizens fully grasp what is being proposed to be done to Dee Koestering Park without knowing how their own tax dollars are going to be spent by Great Rivers Greenway?

At this time I request three issues get clarified in this proposal before the next subcommittee or regular Park Board meeting. I believe this will aid the citizens of Kirkwood to have a fair, accurate and balanced look at this proposal.

First, post a map or series of maps that allow folks to clearly and completely see all the boundaries of Dee Koestering Park in relation to the proposed path, the property lines of the parks’ various neighbors, clearly delineating what is public property, private property, right of ways for railroads or governmental bodies. The two maps provided are completely inadequate to show even the simple boundaries of Dee Koestering Park. I believe providing a map that shows all lanes of Big Bend Rd as a Northern boundary and all lanes of I-270 as a Western boundary would go far in providing an adequate perspective.

Second, request Great Rivers Greenway provide a cost estimate (a range) for the Dee Koestering Park portion of the proposal based on the construction work they have paid for or received bids for on similar type of steep grade trails.

Third, request Great Rivers Greenway provide examples – pictures, schematics, distances etc. – of bike paths that have dealt with similar steep grades they or other similar organizations have been able to bring to completion and are in use. Plus, the projected costs and actual total costs of those completed projects.

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

Have a great day!

Joe Toenjes

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

What is your take on this proposal? Hit "Comment" link below and share your thoughts.

New for March @ www.joekirkwood.blogspot.com

2009-03-14T23:17:00.004-05:00

Hello Fellow Kirkwoodians,

Hope you will notice a few of the additions I have added lately ...

First, I spruced up the page with some additional pictures I have taken around town.

Also, you might have also noticed a familiar logo diplayed on the site. Yes, http://www.joekirkwood.blogspot.com/ is now a member of the Chamber of Commerce. This is a exciting additional step to take with this publication. When I had Frank 'N Patty's, I found it useful and productive to be a member of the Chamber. So, I look forward to working with the Chamber and its members to build and strengthen our community and the Kirkwood-Des Peres area.

Even more exciting news ...

The folks at InCityNews.com have come to Kirkwood to give a hands-on take of local news. They have started video taping our City Council meetings.

How cool is this service to our community?

Can not make it to a City Council meeting to hear about an issue? Want to know what really went on?

Follow the link below and you will be able download and view the meeting:

http://www.incitynews.com/stlc-kirkwood-/council-meetings/index.php

So, I have added a new "video link" section to the left-hand side of the site, so you can easily access InCityNews and its videos of our City Council meetings.

I hope everyone that attends the City Council meetings will "Thank" the good folks at InCityNews.com for this unique informational service. Or if you like send an email to Daniel Brewster - InCityNews.com Publisher at dbrewster@dimbyville.com.

Finally, if you find something new or interesting going on in Kirkwood that I can highlight and add to this site, please do not hesitate to contact me at joekirkwood1@gmail.com.

Have a great day!
Joe

"Your Hometown Newspaper" ... Right?

2009-03-09T02:00:00.008-05:00

Below is the email I sent to the Editorial Staff of the Webster-________ Times on 02-28-09 in response to the 02-27-09 edition of the Mailbag. As of this posting for Sunday 03-08-09 I have not received a response from any editor at the Webster-________ Times. I had even left a voicemail message for "Scoop" Corrigan, but not a peep from him.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editors of the Webster-Kirkwood Times,

By printing Reese Forbes’ Mailbag letter this week you once again proved how you have no understanding of issues in Kirkwood. In addition, you in characteristic fashion proved how you are inherently jaded and stilted in how you handle Mailbag letters. The changes you made to my letter, its title and its first paragraph, changed my letter’s meaning. Then, without an ounce of decency or journalistic ethics you printed the letter by Mr. Forbes that calls into question the changes one of you made to my letter.

First to point out how you are inherently jaded and stilted, I had to submit my letter two weeks in a row in response to Ms Loemker’s letter before it got printed in the Mailbag. Mr. Forbes of course got his printed the first time around. And I suspect, so did Ms. Loemker's letter I was responding to.

Here is what I submitted to you each time for the title and first paragraph of the letter:

Smoke-Free Battle Bad For Kirkwood

What was Jean Loemker trying to pull with her Feb. 6th Mailbag letter "Smoke Free Is Good Business?" Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by "thousands" of more voters?

Here is what you finally printed for the title and first paragraph of the letter:

Another Fight Against Smoking?

What was Jean Loemker trying to pull with her Feb. 6 letter, Smoke Free Is Good Business? Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by thousands of voters?

Please note I put in bold the differences.

Your changing of the title couches my letter so differently from what is reality. Proving once again how you do not understand issues in Kirkwood and how stilted you are in presenting Kirkwood issues anywhere in your paper. Yet, all the while you are proclaiming the Times as “Your Hometown Newspaper.”

Your change in the title frames the discussion going on in our community as if it were “smoking” versus “non-smoking.” Ms. Loemker and her zealots love framing the discussion as “smoking” versus “non-smoking.” It works so well for them, because it allows them to play on peoples' heart strings and play to folks’ emotions due to the health issues related to “smoking.”

Yet, the reality is the issue in Kirkwood has never been about “smoking.” The issue has always been about how we as a community will properly legislate a “smoke-free” ordinance for businesses. Your change undercuts my stance on the issue and hands it to the opposition. Displaying for all how jaded, stilted, unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced you are when it comes to how you handle Mailbag letters.

Keep in mind, I had a “smoke-free” business in Kirkwood at the time we had the last “smoke-free” battle. At my business, I required the smoking employees to walk out the front door, they could not simply go out the back door, then they had to walk all the way to the back of the building in order to smoke. I even annoyed the smoking employees further by only responding to the question, “Can I go have a cancer treatment?” when they were requesting a “smoke break.” So, I am all for “smoke-free” businesses and do not support “smoking” public building or even in my home.

In addition, those of us that opposed Ms. Loemker’s poorly drafted proposal had no issue with a state-wide law for “smoke-free” businesses. We simply asked Ms. Loemker’s group and the numerous advocacy groups backing her to take that battle to where it belongs – Jefferson City. We wanted a fair and even field for our business community. We did not want our business community to be singled out as they planned to "duke it out" municipality by municipality across St. Louis County. See Mailbag letter from Pat Lindsey - Executive Director of Tobacco FreeMO.org from August 2006. That is what they were attempting to do and did not mind telling us they were going to use our businesses and our community as pawns in thier battle. Yet, Ms. Loemker and her zealots ignored us and drafted their own proposal that did not ban just “smoking.” No, the very laborious and cobbled together legal definition they created for "smoking" essentially would have banned “smoke” in Kirkwood. Go look up the proposal that what was submitted by Ms. Loemker at City Hall and read it for yourself.

Your further changes not only manipulated the framing of the issue, but changed the meaning of my letter. Which I find ridiculous to begin with, given you consistently refuse to print my letters if they do not fit within your word length or what you feel violates some other known or unknown code you have about Mailbag letters. So, I spend hours parsing my words and framing a letter that perfectly says what I want to say hoping it will fit within all your constraints. Then, you go and change my words and change the meaning of what I wanted to say.

This is what you did to the original second question of my letter. My second question, before you changed it, was in response to Ms. Loemker’s statement trying to pump up how her flawed proposal was supported by Kirkwood voters. In her letter she said:

In 2006, Kirkwood Council Member Tim Griffin advised Kirkwood voters: "Just don't go there," rather than endorse a Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance supported by thousands of Kirkwood voters.

My original question put her statement in the correct light by reminding folks that “thousands of MORE” Kirkwoodians voted against her proposal. Your change made it a numbers game that Mr. Forbes could easily exploit. Which Mr. Forbes did in his letter you printed without a word from you that you had changed my letter’s wording and my letter’s meaning.

You hold me publicly accountable and allow someone to attack me and my position for your words? How ethical is that? How does that show an ounce of decency? How does that show fairness, accuracy or balance on your part as journalists?

Then, to make matters even worse you did not have the common sense to check if Mr. Forbes’ statement matched “the facts” of the numbers game he was playing. This would have taken about 5 minutes at the most.

Here are the results readily available on-line at the St. Louis County Election Board’s web site for the November 7, 2006 election:

PROPOSITION 1 - CITY OF KIRKWOOD
NO 7,831
YES 6,504

The difference is 1,327. Divide the difference by 2 and round it up and you get is 664.

So, it is not “The fact is that if 671 voters had changed their vote to "yes" from "no," the ban on smoking cigarettes in workplaces would have passed” as Mr. Forbes’ letter said. They only needed 664 to switch.

Also, please tell me what I misstated in my letter that would cause you to so readily print Mr. Forbes letter? I think this is quite a reasonable request given the fact that Mr. Forbes never backs a single one of his “misstatement” attacks against me and my position with a single fact.

Here let’s take a look at what I said and how it matches to the facts:

Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by "thousands" of more voters?
Correct: The facts are 7,831 voted NO.

Does anyone remember a single Kirkwood elected official, past or present, who publicly endorsed and campaigned for her flawed proposal?
Correct: The facts are no Kirkwood elected official publicly endorsed or campaigned for her flawed proposal.

Did she think those of us who campaigned against her unfair proposal forgot how outrageously punitive it was to Kirkwood businesses rather than to smokers?
Correct: The facts are Kirkwood businesses would have outrageously been fined for anyone smoking within 25 feet of their building. How can you control what someone does within 25 feet outside your building? Plus, the punitive fines were set to be higher for business than they were for the violating smoker. In addition, the punitive fines were set to increase at a greater rate for each additional offense for businesses than the fines did for violating smokers.

Did she think we forgot the fact that she had "anti-smoking" zealots shipped into Kirkwood from as far away as Lincoln County, MO to fight for their agenda?
Correct: Here is the list of official petition signature gatherers from “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” who lived outside of Kirkwood:
Martin Pion, 6 Manor Lane, Ferguson, MO 63135
Mike Doran, 1477 Bent Oak Ridge Court, Fenton, MO 63026
Charles Gatton, 647 Lemonwood, Ballwin, MO 63021
Baker Symes, 465 Catalina, Webster Groves, MO
Richard Hyer, 252 S. Moore School Rd., Troy, Mo. 63379
The facts are nearly 20% of the required signatures from Kirkwoodian voters for a supposedly Kirkwoodian proposal, were gathered by folks that did not live in Kirkwood.

Did she think we forgot the thousands of dollars spent by a state-wide "anti-smoking" coalition that was magically targeting Kirkwood with an anti-smoking ad campaign using four big billboard signs at Kirkwood Road and Big Bend at the same time her flawed proposal was before voters?
Correct: The facts are if you contact the billboard company that owns the ones at Kirkwood Road and Big Bend, you will find that TobaccoFreeMO.org paid for 4 billboards around November, 2006.

I want you to know I would not be so rightfully aggravated with you if you would have had the decency to put an editor’s note pointing out how you changed my letter, how the issue is not about “smoking” and how Mr. Forbes can not get his facts straight regarding what he and Ms Loemker submitted in their proposal.

You had ample opportunity to set the record straight when you read Mr. Forbes’ letter. Just how did Mr. Forbes know, “There was overwhelming support by Kirkwoodians until all those old misstatements, which Mr Toenjes again reiterated in his letter, caused citizens to tell us they were going to switch from "yes" to "no" because they feared they could not barbecue in their backyard (which had nothing to do with the ordinance).” Go read the proposal submitted by “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” and tell me how you can print that statement much less the rest of his letter with a straight face? Plus, how did Mr. Forbes get this grand understanding to know there was “overwhelming support by Kirkwoodians?” Does he possess the clairvoyance to read the minds of all Kirkwood voters who rejected his proposal or did not vote at all?

This kind of nonsense attack is par for course for the folks in Kirkwood you have courted with your paper. You consistently allow the “alleged disenfranchised” in our community to try to blame others for their failures. Ms. Loemker, Mr. Forbes and the rest of the “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” drafted their proposal to their liking and to fit their agenda, they conscripted zealots from far and wide to push their agenda, they timed their proposal to hit while TobaccoFreeMO.com was doing their advertising campaign, then they want to blame the opposition for their proposal failing. How ridiculous!

How many more times do we have to play this game? You consistently allow the “alleged disenfranchised” to muddy the waters and fail to clear up the issue for your readers in Kirkwood. You did the same and continue to do the same for the K-FAIR folks and their ridiculous ward proposal that went down in flames. These two groups of folks have no one to blame, but themselves for their failures. But, they lack what it takes to accept responsibility for their own actions. Then, you make matters worse by letting them perpetrate the blame game on others in our community.

Yet, you do not have any issues clearing up an ignorant Mailbag letter when it comes to a Webster issue. Need I remind you of the DQ – Flowerama sign issue letter you corrected with an editor’s note. You showed you gave a damn about that letter concerning a Webster issue where the writer was making a charge that was not correct. But, you have consistently failed to show you give a damn about a Kirkwood issues when someone is factual incorrect in their letter. Further displaying for all how jaded, stilted, unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced you are when it comes to how you handle Mailbag letters for the community of Kirkwood.

So, the questions I have that deserve an answer are…

How are you going to clear up the mess you created?

How are you going to clear my name and my position on the "smoke-free" issue in Kirkwood?

How are you going to point out how Ms. Loemker and Mr. Forbes do not have a factual grasp of the "smoke-free" issue in Kirkwood?

How are you going set the record straight for the “Hometown” you supposedly serve regarding the entire issue of the “smoke-free” battle?

At this point I do not have any hope of being able to clear up the mess you created with a less than 300 word response to Mr. Forbes and his “misstatements” attack letter. Plus, I have no expectation my original submission would get printed by you as written.

I have included our community's business leaders and our comunity's elected leaders in on this email. I want to to remind them of my last two questions of my Mailbag letter ...

Is Jean Loemker with her letter trying to lay the ground work for Kirkwood to once again be the battleground for an agenda she and her cohorts need to take to legislators in Jefferson City? Do Kirkwoodians really want our community and its businesses to once again be abused like meaningless pawns and subjected to another pointless political battle?

It is time you, the Editors of the Webster-Kirkwood Times, start acting with journalistic ethics and with simple decency in the community of Kirkwood.

Joe Toenjes

---------------------------------------------------------------

With the newest edition of the Webster-________ Times out, it is clear the Editors continue to be more interested in creating controversy in Kirkwood, than being journalist out to present the facts to its readers in Kirkwood. They show they would rather twist people's words. They show they would rather change completely the subject of a Mailbag letter. They show its is more important for them to muddy the waters of an issue, rather than bring clarity and thoughtfulness. Dwight Bitikofer and Don Corrigan prove they are not interested in being fair, accurate or balanced journalists when dealing with issues in Kirkwood.

The Webster-________ Times proclaims "Your Hometown Newspaper" ... I would like to know when?

Turning a Blind Eye

2009-03-05T23:46:00.006-06:00

I have a few questions for you tonight Mayor.

Do you think the subject and the information presented in my budget speech will make it into Mr. Hopefl’s Kmail notes of this council meeting? Or will they be excluded as I and other citizens of this community have been excluded by Kmail and its leaders?

Which makes me wonder just how in the world anyone could call Mr. Hopefl’s Kmail meeting notes an “asset” to the community as you called them at the 1st city council meeting in February?

The community of Kirkwood is not included or served by Kmail as you asserted from that dais. The facts are Kmail from its inception has been an exclusionary cause that allows no public scrutiny of what it has to present. In fact, to make matters worse its leader Mr. Williams publicly vilifies and misrepresents anyone that does not kowtow to his frequent and overbearing demands. Or, God forbid, anyone who dares to call into question anything he spews in his Kmails.

Please Mayor … remember the other members of our community you were elected to represent who have been the targets of Mr. William’s and Mr. Hopefl’s unwarranted false accusations and vilifications. Please … remember especially those sitting up there with you on that dais serving our community, since some of them have been the past targets of Mr. Williams' and Mr. Hopefl's Kmail. Please … remember our community has never seen either one of them apologize publicly for their very public, false and destructive accusations.

Turning a blind-eye to their actions does not benefit or further our community.

========
Please note:

I also responded to the comments of another citizen regarding single-stream curbside recycling. I did not have a response written and prepared to deal with the misinformation presented by that citizen.

Since my comments were extemporaneous in nature, I would not want to try to recreate them here. If you are interested in understanding the reality of curbside recycling service in Kirkwood, then please see my past postings on “Recycling.”

There are now 5 posts on the subject of "Recycling" you can easily find by going to the "for posts on a specific subject" list on the left-hand side of the blog.

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

I want readers to know I am not against Art McDonnell. He has been a friend, my neighborhood grocer and a fellow campaigner on a variety of causes in our community. In fact, he is the first Kirkwoodian I struck up a friendship with almost a dozen years ago when I first moved to Kirkwood.

But, I will not sit by and see the Mayor - who is elected to represent all - publicly praise Kmail and its leaders without raising my voice at the proper time. Mr. Keith Williams and Mr. Alan Hopefl and their very public, incredibly false and outrageously destructive comments in Kmail over the years, have not been an "asset" to this community. They work together on Kmail. They are the public faces of Kmail. Their "meeting notes" as well as their "dispatches" need to be held to the light of public scrutiny and equally judged accordingly.

When weighed in the balance - Kmail is found wanting.

So, what is your take ... take this opportunity to express your thoughts ... just click on the "Comments" link below.

Budget Speech: Promise Made - Promise Kept

2009-03-05T23:21:00.005-06:00

Below is my speech tonight regarding the City Budget ...

I found Tuesday morning’s budget work session meeting quite interesting to listen to. I have a few things to say about the 2009-2010 budget tonight.

First, as someone who campaigned for Prop. C in 2007 … this citizen is looking for this Council to unequivocally be able to say to the good citizens of Kirkwood.

PROMISE MADE – PROMISE KEPT

As someone who walked the streets of Kirkwood, going door to door, working along side, Police Officers, Firefighters, other City employees and scores of citizen volunteers using these two pieces of material.

PROMISE MADE – PROMISE KEPT

Please read and re-read the copies of these two pieces I made for you. Read what was said to the voters regarding police, fire and city staff salaries. Read what was said about streets. Then, deliver.

PROMISE MADE – PROMISE KEPT

You Mrs. Jaksetic definitely need to read these two pieces since your only budgetary leadership on this issue was to sit on the sidelines more worried about a legacy than willing to work hard and deal with the reality of what our community was and is now facing.

If the citizens of Kirkwood would have followed your leadership … or should I say the lack thereof on this issue. If the citizens had listened to the nonsense of Keith Williams with his Kmails and his accusations of the city having all these big surpluses and big slush funds. If the citizens of Kirkwood had listened to your City Council running mate Gary Reim Jr. and his incredibly irresponsible claim our community should borrow more to deal with these long-term budgetary issues. If that had happened … Dear God … then, where would we be today … in this present economic environment … with these present doubled wholesale electric rates and … with the continued stagnant sales tax revenues?

Finally, I wish to remind you all, it was the leadership of our former Mayor, the leadership of the majority of our former City Council, the leadership of numerous city employees, the leadership of an incredible group of citizen volunteers that have helped this City Council to have in reality … in the scope of things … some of the easiest budgetary decisions to make for 2009-2010.

PROMISE MADE – PROMISE KEPT

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

What is your take? Take a moment and add your comments. Just click on the "Comment" link below.

Been away for a while ...

2009-03-03T00:09:00.004-06:00

Hello Folks,

Been away for a while ...

It has been November since I made a posting on the blog.

I took a step away for the holidays. We are all too busy to begin with.

Then, the New Year came.

At that time, I decided to hold off from posting as our community drew near to the one year anniversary of the City Hall shootings. I wanted folks to have the ability to focus on honoring our fellow Kirkwoodians we lost on that horrible night. We lost some great people on that night. But, we have persevered as a community.

We can never replace those folks, but we can honor them by working hard to build a greater community and standing up for what is right in Kirkwood.

I wish to thank the folks at City Hall - our elected leaders and all of our City Staff - for going above and beyond to lead us and bring us through this tough year.

As I look at what I have seen since the New Year. Then, as I look at what is coming up in 2009. I see a few issues trying to hit with a bleep on the radar screen once again. Not to mention the City budget process is starting up. Nor can we forget the new wholesale electric rate increases Kirkwood Electric needs to juggle. The rate increases are not pretty, but they are part of doing business.

So, there are issues going on and folks need to stay informed.

Stay tuned … more posts will be forthcoming …

Have a great day!
Joe

The Life and Times of Misrepresent Moore

2008-11-21T13:23:00.002-06:00

Last night I was quite surprised to see Michael “Misrepresent” Moore being interviewed by News Channel 5 regarding polling place issues and voter complaints being made before the St. Louis County Election Board. The report focused on election day issues that took place in Velda City and other parts of North County. Yet, for some unknown reason there was Michael “Misrepresent” Moore speaking on the issue.

As I thought more about this report, I began to wonder about the Life and Times of Misrepresent Moore …

What drove Misrepresent Moore to be at that St. Louis County Election Board meeting yesterday?

How does this fit into his grand proclaimed “human rights” campaign series he has run in Kirkwood?

Since Misrepresent Moore is now gearing up his new “voters’ rights” crusade in North St. Louis County and especially Velda City what does this mean?

Will he be moving to Velda City? Misrepresent Moore ran his alleged “human rights” campaign series in Kirkwood while a resident of Creve Couer for more than 2 years before pretending to move to Kirkwood to run for Mayor in April.

Or could it be Misrepresent Moore already moved to Velda City and was only at the Election Board meeting to complain that he was not able to vote in both communities on election day?

Are the folks in Velda City ready to handle a Misrepresent Moore-style “human rights” campaign series like the one he has perpetrated in Kirkwood thus far?

Does Velda City have a Human Rights Advisory and Awareness Commission Misrepresent Moore can try to manipulate and bully?

The questions abound! But, I come back to the first question …

What drove Misrepresent Moore to be at that St. Louis County Election Board meeting yesterday?

Could Misrepresent Moore really only be there to exact some second-hand retribution against the St. Louis County Election Board after hearing the reports of problems in Velda City?

Remember the Election Board did rightfully do their duty and called into question Misrepresent Moore's qualifications and his lack of fulfillment of the requirements to file as a candidate for the Office of Mayor in Kirkwood back in April, 2008. Misrepresent Moore filed a lawsuit against the Election Board and got nowhere with it. Misrepresent Moore was forced to withdraw his frivolous lawsuit before it was thrown out.

Now here it is a few months later and Misrepresent Moore is out attacking the St. Louis County Election Board on an issue that does not involve him, his supposed immediate community or his alleged “human rights” campaign.

Could this graphically display the true opportunistic nature of Misrepresent Moore? Any chance Misrepresent Moore gets he just goes out to misrepresent more and more and more?

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

The saga with Mr. Moore continues. If you have a take on this issue, hit the “Comments” link below. Have a great day! Joe

Questions about Curbside Recycling for the Kirkwood City Council

2008-11-18T01:04:00.004-06:00

Dear Kirkwood City Council,

In a November 6, 2008 Webster-________ Times article it was reported concerning the October 23, 2008 Kirkwood Town Hall meeting that the three City Council members in attendance "responded positively" to a citizen's "suggestion to implement curbside recycling."

I do have to wonder if this is true given the fact that the reporter and the entire editorial staff of the our alleged "Hometown Newspaper" in that same article once again proved how little they know about Kirkwood by confusing Blue Water Grill with Graham's Grill. I do have to wonder if Mr. Huelsmann was a top graduate of Scoop Corrigan's journalism course on fact-checking? These and other serious journalistic and editorial questions about our alleged "Hometown Newspaper" need to be asked and answered, but today is not that day.

Hoping that Mr. Huelsmann did actually get the facts straight on this subject and you are going to recycle the curbside question, I wish to ask a few questions and along the way present a few facts on the issue.

The first question that needs to be asked is, "Why does the City of Kirkwood need a curbside recycling service?"

The main reason why I have to ask this question is that curbside recycling service has been available to Kirkwood citizens since 1997. So, we are not behind on having curbside recycling in our community as some proponents like to flagrantly twist and distort the issue. Yes, Earth Circle Recycling really has been providing curbside service in Kirkwood for more than a decade now. In addition, their fee is only $100 a year for once-a-week pickup. This brings their service costs to their customers below $2.00 a week for curbside service. So, if a citizen wants curbside service there is nothing stopping them from getting that service.

The next question is, "How does the City of Kirkwood with a curbside service intend to beat the present cost to recycle in our community?"

Not only do you realistically have to beat the less than $2.00 a week for once-a-week pickup, while not changing our present voter approved twice-a-week trash pickup. But, there is even more to consider. How about those of us citizens who do not want to pay an additional fee for a curbside service we do not need? It costs us, customers of our present fine City recyclery absolutely nothing, nada, diddly-squat, nil, null, goose-egg, zero, zip, blanko, zilch, zippo. Need I give any more synonyms? How do you plan to beat FREE with a curbside service?

This brings us to the next question that needs to be asked. "What will it cost the citizens who will need to pay the price tag for the City of Kirkwood to implement a curbside recycling service?"

This is the real rubber-hits-the-road question of this issue. I do not know anyone who believes we need to add another unnecessary cost to our fellow citizens. Also, I will remind you of the fact that the voters of this community in April, 2004 overwhelmingly sent a clear message to the City Council. The voters chose by a margin of over 2.8-to-1 that they did not want to add curbside recycling. A 2-to-1 margin in any other community is considered a mandate from the citizens. Yet, here it is just over 4 years later, with less than a handful of misinformed and distorted Mailbag letters on the subject having been written in the Webster-________ Times since April and our community is supposed to rehash this subject all over again.

My final question is, "Given the above facts presented and the questions asked do we really need to rehash the subject of curbside recycling all over again?"

This letter to you will be posted on my Kirkwood blog … www.joekirkwood.blogspot.com.

Thank you for your time and service to our community.
Joe

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

Hello Reader ... I hope you will post your thoughts on the subject by clicking on the "Comments" link below. Thanks and have a great day! Joe

Where’s the beef Tom?

2008-09-04T01:06:00.005-05:00

Tonight I had a chance to review our School District staff’s budget presentation given at the August 25th Kirkwood School District tax rate hearing. Then, I compared those facts with the comments and the Mailbag letter in the August 29th Webster-Kirkwood Times from Tom Haenni. I have a challenge with the comments and actions of both Tom and Sarah Haenni at this meeting.

First, I have issue with the way Sarah carried herself with her comments at the hearing. Sarah went droning on for almost 9 minutes of a 60 minute hearing, with her grand thesis on the alleged twisting of facts by the Kirkwood School Board. I am still trying to figure out how Sarah even begins to think only her comments deserve taking up almost 15% of the scheduled hearing time? Where does she get off thinking only she is worthy of using that much time at the hearing? This is especially the case with such a packed room, full of other citizens in the District.

When she was told by the time moderator that she was at 6 minutes, her reply was she worked 2 hours on her speech and it needed to be said. What? Can she not count to 180 seconds then figure out how to get her point across in that time period with two hours to prepare? Hey, its called an egg-timer and it works real well to keep you on track. But, was getting a point across to our School Board really the objective? Or was it all just grandstanding for the crowd and hoping for a quote in one of the local papers?

Then, we have to take a look at Tom’s big beef with our School Board. His comments at the meeting and in the Mailbag letter criticized our School Board’s decision to not base the budget on a Tax Collection rate of 97%. He was quoted at the meeting as saying, “For five years, the district has been capturing over 97 percent of its taxes.”

But, just how much of a twisting of the facts was that by Tom?

The reality is 5 out of the last 6 years our School District realized an over 97% Tax Collection rate. For some reason Tom choose to ignore completely the fact that the Tax Collection Rate over the last 10 years has swung with some wide variance. It has gone from as high as 97.63% to as low as 91.35%. The average of these two numbers gives us a Tax Collection Rate of 94.49%. The average Tax Collection Rate over the last 10 years has been 95.33%.

Gee I wonder why our School Board smartly chose to use a more conservative 95% Tax Collection Rate rather than a short-sighted 97% Tax Collection Rate?

When I look at the facts I am compelled to ask one question … Where’s the beef Tom?

But, more importantly why did Tom who is such a critic of our School Board choose to ignore the facts regarding the other 5 years of lesser Tax Collection Rates? What is he trying to hide from his supporters? Why was he clearly twisting the facts to fit his short-sighted criticism of our School Board?

Then, Tom tries to take his show on the road with his letter in the Webster-Kirkwood Times. But, here again he plays his same tired set of cards. I can only suspect that they are Tarot cards since somehow Tom has gotten the ability to tell us the future. He says,

“By the time this letter is printed, the Kirkwood School Board will have most likely voted in the same blended tax rate as was used last year. When the more realistic collection rate of 97 percent is realized, Kirkwood will collect $1.5 million more in property taxes than was stated as needed this year on the tax rate hearing notice.”

Tom actually missed the mark since the School Board raised the blended rate by a whopping 0.0024 cents. Plus, I have to ask is it really a given that it is a “When” much less “realistic” that the “collection of 97 percent” will be “realized” based on the facts in the presentation given at the meeting? The reality is Tom does not know what the Tax Collection Rate will be, neither do I and neither does our School Board. Yet, it seems clear Tom thinks he has all the answers.

Finally, I do not have a problem with folks asking tough questions of our elected leaders. Or people speaking out with a point of view. But, I take issue when someone wants to accuse our elected leaders like the Haenni’s have our School Board for allegedly not being forthright with the facts, but then do the very thing they are accusing others of doing.

The Haenni’s arguments fall on deaf ears when they so blatantly twist the facts and act like they did at and since this last School Board meeting.

I hope the Haenni’s will appreciate this critique of their comments and actions, especially since they seem ready, willing and able to hand criticism out by the shovels full to our elected School Board members.

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

Give your take on this issue by hitting on the Comments link below.

August 29, 2008 Poll Question

2008-08-29T01:02:00.001-05:00

In the last 5 years what has been the best raise - increase in base pay (excludes bonuses, promotions, options etc.) - you have gotten from the same employer for the same position?

With this latest poll I am just trying to get an idea of what folks in our community who work salaried or hourly jobs get for raises. Please do not include one-time bonuses or stock options or promotions or other incentives. I am looking for how much was the biggest increase in your base salary or hourly wage in the last 5 years for the same job. If you are retired then, what was the biggest raise you received in the last 5 years before you retired for the same job?

This poll will close on September 19th.

As with all my polls they are not scientific. I am just trying to get an idea of what is going on in the lives of the blog’s readers. Thanks for voting.

When will “SH” come forward and stand behind their statement?

2008-08-28T17:20:00.003-05:00

This last Monday August 25th I attended my very first Kirkwood Board of Education meeting. Having no munchkins at all yet or any other family attending a school in the district, I have not seen a need to attend these meetings. I do glance over the updates the Board prints and sends out. The standardized testing scores the students get seem to be good. I do not hear complaints from my friends and neighbors that do have kids in the district’s schools. So, like most folks I leave the issues in the hands of the folks we elected to serve us and our community’s students – the Board of Education.

Before I go any further I want readers to know I do bring a unique perspective to School Board issues, since I was raised by my mother who is now a retired teacher. I have first-hand experiences of what it takes to be a dedicated elementary school teacher as I watched my mother’s career of 27 years. I have been a part of the struggles and the rewards. It is incredible to be out with her and people will recognize her, then go on and on about what an impact she had on their life as their teacher. Not only does my Mama get the “big head” about it, but I do too! Hey that’s my Mama! She kicked butt and took names as a teacher. Just ask her … or … me for that matter! (wink)

On Monday I came to my first meeting to see what would be said and not said by those attending. My interest had been peaked by an anonymous and of course pathetic comment that was made in a June 9th Kmail. Supposedly, some resident identified by Keith Williams as “SH” said:

“I trust none of them. They are snakes who present information w/ their own spin on it. Then they act like people who call them out on it are the enemy. I am not the enemy. I just want fairness and reasonableness. As long as people have a myopic view that those running our schools can do no wrong, we're hopelessly screwed!”

Yet, that night no one came up to the podium and uttered this quote. As I have said before on this issue, “SH” is clearly a person that is devoid of the quality of character to publicly address our elected school board members, look them in the eye, make this statement and stand by it. So, this person slithers over to Keith, hides behind Kmail, so they together can make their political attacks with anonymity. So, who are the real snakes in this instance?

This kind of a statement by “SH” makes me question just how much this person wants “fairness” or “reasonableness.” They are definitely providing neither. Their lack of corresponding action does not match their anonymous run-off-of-the-mouth.

Like all too many of the “Alleged Disenfranchised” in this community “SH” is – All Bluster, All Slam, All Hype.

When will “SH” come forward and stand behind their statement?

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

That's my take thus far! What's yours? Click on the "Comments" link below and share you take on the issue.

What’s next for Kmail?

2008-08-14T01:04:00.006-05:00

It has been over a week since the election and according to my Kmail sources they have not received a new Kmail dispatch. There is nothing but silence from Kmail? What is up with Keith? What’s next for Kmail?

This is an interesting question since Keith sent out a last ditch attempt to go after Paul Ward in a 07/29/08 Kmail. There were various (using Keith’s own words) “nauseating” and “nefarious” accusations made in that Kmail against Paul. But, in true Keith fashion he did not hold all the candidates to the same standard after he had sharpened his political dagger and took some swipes at Paul. It is safe to say Keith showed how Kmail was not interested in all the facts about all the candidates running in this election, just the one he wanted to attack. He was simply going after Paul full-throttle right before the election. It was such an act of desperation, even more so than his lambasting of Tim Griffin in April of this year.

The most basic way Kmail showed its true colors in this attack email was Keith’s tired line that Paul was not on the list of “qualified candidates.” Hello Keith, 100 or more Kirkwood voters signed a petition to put Paul’s name on a ballot in accordance with our City Charter. That is qualified in the real world! In addition, the St. Louis County Board of Election verified those names as registered voters and placed Paul’s name on the election ballot. That is qualified in the real world! Finally, unlike his other two opponents, Paul was previously elected by Kirkwood voters and served our community for 4 years on our City Council. That is … more qualified … in the real world!

In Keith’s Kmail Kirkwood the decision of actual voters in our community does not matter. According to Keith's declaration voters in Kirkwood do not know how to choose a “qualified candidate.” Only Kmail speaks for voters in our community in Keith’s world. Fortunately, not many in Kirkwood live in Keith’s world.

As readers of this blog have already seen Keith really does not live in the real world at all.

Keith’s past off-base election predictions were debunked in:
The Coming Prognostications of Kmail

The mystery of Kmail was cleared up in:
There Is No Mystery In Kirkwood About Kmail

Kmail’s “fabrication business” was dealt with in:
Can you give me a number between 1 and 10, Keith?

I hope with this posting Donkeith Corleowilliams will soon come to understand that just because Paul, Tim or any other candidate chooses to not take him up on his “offer they can not refuse” and decides to not submit to using Kmail, does not mean they are not a “qualified candidate” in our community. This is the second time Keith has tried to use this tactic. Thus, this is the second time the Kmail “unqualified candidate” has won and done so overwhelmingly in our community.

Will we see the same shameless candidate shake-down from Kmail in 2010?

We do not know, but Keith’s candidate Bob Sears (typo corrected from original post) is planning on being on the ballot. Bob declared his candidacy in the Kirkwood-Webster Journal's Letters to the Editor yesterday.

Wow ... so how far will Kmail go to prop up Bob Sears in 2010? What’s next for Kmail?

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

That's my take on the issue. What's yours? If you have your own take on this issue, then do not back down now! Click on the Comments link below and share your thoughts! Thanks in advance.

Questions for the Editors of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

2008-08-11T12:33:00.004-05:00

Dear Ms. Mannies and the Editors of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,

I recently read at stltoday the following article:

"08.07.2008 7:23 pm
Eagleton: Dems oppose his request for recount
By Jo Mannies
Steve Eagleton, the Kirkwood lawyer/developer seeking the 15th District state Senate seat, says that the state Senate Democratic leadership has told him not to go ahead with his request for a recount. …"

Could any of you please tell me who says Mr. Steve Eagleton is a "lawyer?" Does he say he is a "lawyer?" Or does just the press say he is a "lawyer?"

I have been trying to figure out how journalists, professionally trained in fact-finding and fact-checking, continue to place this title onto Mr. Eagleton when he is not a member of the Missouri Bar. So, just how does Mr. Eagleton fit the definition of a "lawyer" when he is not authorized to practice law in Missouri?

This brings me to my next set of questions for the editors.

Why do you journalist folks at the Post-Dispatch just not have the ability to get the facts straight in the community of Kirkwood? Especially since it seems like you continue to show you have no clue about the members of "Kirkwood Citizens Coming Together for a Bright Future" (KCCTBF), which includes its co-chair Mr. Eagleton.

Who can forget your editorial entitled, "A Long Time Healing" from March 3, 2008? Have any of you been able to find a KCCTBF candidate at either of the two city elections in our community since you wrote that drivel?

Ever going to clean up the mess you helped create with that editorial or are you going to continue to ignore the facts regarding the members of KCCTBF and further "A Long Time Healing" in Kirkwood?

Just Wondering,

Joe Toenjes

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

What is your take on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's issue with presenting the facts. Take a moment, click on the Comments link below and share you point of view.

Can you give me a number between 1 and 10, Keith?

2008-08-03T10:28:00.005-05:00

On July 31, 2008 Kmail sent out another classic missive of misdirection that need to be addressed, on oh so many levels. I will be dealing with a variety of issues from this email in the near future.

But, I want to deal with his statement about me in the email with this posting. He wrote,

“And then we have an unsolicited note from a Joe Kirkwood.”…
“He is not a Kmail subscriber …”

Is this anywhere near reality in Kirkwood?

I have been told, but do not know this for a fact, that Mr. Williams’ career was running “some sort of fabrication business.” I do not know if this is true or not.

But, what I do know … without question … is that Kmail is in the “fabrication business.”

Yes, Mr. Williams via Kmail says I am “not a Kmail subscriber.”

So, how many times does a Kirkwoodian have to request to be added to Kmail, before Mr. Williams actually adds them?

I mean Keith presents Kmail as a …

“community service … offered free of charge” …

“This is a community service Kmail is very proud to provide for the betterment and education of us all.” …

a "100% Kirkwood" … newsletter.

I, therefore, have to ask about the number of times a Kirkwoodian needs to request to be added to Kmail …

Can you give me a number between 1 and 10, Keith?

I mean really my last name is pronounced “Ten – Yes.” So, can we not keep it within a reasonable number?

As you know I am already somewhere between 4 to 6 times requesting you add me to Kmail. How much more do I have to go?

If you can not, then … please, let’s be forthright with your Kmail readers if you do not mind, Keith.

The reality in Kirkwood does not come close to the idea that I am “not a Kmail subscriber.” That is a grand figment of your imagination you wish to perpetrate on the readers of Kmail.

The reality in Kirkwood is that you have refused to add me to Kmail. You and only you.

You chose to exclude a fellow Kirkwoodian from receiving your alleged “community service … offered free of charge.” You chose to not provide this Kirkwoodian with your supposed service for the “betterment and education of us all.” You chose to go out of your way to keep Kmail from being “100% Kirkwood.”

Fess Up … Keith.

Kmail is Keith Mail … nothing more and nothing less.

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

Do you have something to say on this issue? What is your take? Give up your ideas and thoughts on this posting by clicking on the "Comments" link below.

Just how far are they going to go?

2008-07-27T03:57:00.004-05:00

Sorry, it has been a few weeks since I have made a posting.

First, I was on vacation. Plus, I have been waiting for a few phone calls I had made to be returned. In addition, I was waiting to hear or read something about Michael’s City Council campaign platform.

That way I could get some questions answered.

What was Michael Moore going to rehash from his Mayoral campaign? What new load of ridiculousness might he try to dump on our community with his City Council campaign?

In addition, would we see Franklin McCallie publicly throw his full support behind Michael’s City Council campaign? Franklin had said in an email to me that he was supporting Michael’s City Council candidacy back in May or June.

But, readers of this blog know a lot more about Michael than we did back then. Is Franklin really willing to give his full public support to Michael … the self-proclaimed “Ombudsman” … of who knows what in our community? (See the posting: He is Ombudsman of what?)

Would Franklin really support Michael who clearly abused our copyright protected City logo for his own personal political agenda? (See the posting: The Arrogance Is Unbelievable …)

There continues to be serious questions about Michael Moore and what he has tried to pull in our community. Questions that Michael has thus far failed to give an answer for.

So, I have been waiting to see …

Just how far are they going to go?
Just how far is Michael going to go?
Just how far is Franklin going to go?

Well we now have the Journal’s two articles and the Times’ one article on the 3 candidates to review. Now we can see what Michael wants to rehash. Now we can see the new load of … boy what can you really call it? … bovine dung? … Michael is ready to dump on Kirkwood.

Michael’s latest grand proclamations bring up even more serious questions about his various campaigns and organizations he is a part of in our community.

Let’s first deal with “Advocates 4 Joseph” the group Michael started while a citizen of Creve Couer. Michael used the founding of this organization in his Mayoral campaign and continues to hype it with his City Council campaign. In the Kirkwood-Webster Journal from their July 16, 2008 article we read,

Moore said he has been active in Kirkwood since 2005. His non-profit organization "Advocates for Joseph,” provides programs for children in Meacham Park.

This is very interesting, since according to the Missouri Secretary of State’s filings, the “non-profit” corporation was formed in August 22, 2005 “to hold fundraisers + raise money for the family of Joseph Long.” No mention of “programs for children in Meacham Park” can be found in this or any other subsequent filings with the State. Hmmm?

In addition, Michael has shown exactly how much he truly “cares” about “Advocates 4 Joseph.” While he is hyping it up in the newspapers for his Mayoral and his City Council campaigns, he has let it be “administratively dissolved” under Missouri law twice since its inception. Not even a full three years old and it has been dissolved twice! The “care” is overwhelming! In fact, “Advocates 4 Joseph” has remained “administratively dissolved” since December of 2007. So, just how are “programs for children in Meacham Park” being provided by “Advocates 4 Joseph” when it can no longer function as a corporation in the State of Missouri?

How many more games are being played by Mr. Moore?

Well let’s see there is this statement from the Webster-Kirkwood Times article from July 25, 2008:

“What I stand for is human rights,” Moore said. “Everyone should be treated equally under the law ... and equality only comes by changing laws.”

It is interesting that Michael makes himself out to be this grand “civil rights” and “human rights” activist in Kirkwood. Yet, what has he really ever done on the issue? What is his track record on the issue of “civil rights” and “human rights?”

I find it interesting how Michael since 2005 has made the City of Kirkwood and especially its Human Rights Advisory and Awareness Commission a target for protest. He is constantly making statements like this one in the Webster-Kirkwood Times from July 25, 2008 article,

“We talk about all the issues except the 800-pound gorilla in the room. No one wants to talk about racism.”

In his talk about “racism” Michael has made numerous complaints and accusations against the Human Rights Advisory and Awareness Commission. His group “Committee for Unity” wants to totally change the Human Rights Advisory and Awareness Commission in Kirkwood.

Yet, in my research I have not been able to find a single instance of Michael standing up for “civil rights” or “human rights” in his own community when he was a citizen of Creve Couer. I have asked several key present and former City Officials in Creve Couer if they had ever had complaints regarding “civil rights” or “human rights” from a citizen named Michael Moore going back to 2005. They all said they could not remember any kind of complaints from a Michael Moore. In addition, none of them even knew a Creve Couer citizen named Michael Moore. This is incredibly interesting since the City of Creve Couer does not even have a Human Rights Advisory and Awareness Commission.

So, what kind of game is Michael playing in Kirkwood?

What kept Michael from talking about “racism” in Creve Couer when he was a resident? Are we to believe Creve Couer is some sort of “civil rights” and “human rights” utopia in Michael’s eyes, since these same eyes seem so keen to see a “800-pound gorilla” in Kirkwood?

As a citizen of Creve Couer Michael is going to come to Kirkwood to complain about and ultimately try to change our Human Rights Advisory and Awareness Commission, but never say a word about the fact that Creve Couer does not even have a Human Rights Advisory and Awareness Commission? Then, to add insult to injury Michael wants to proclaim in Kirkwood, “What I stand for is human rights.”

What a farce! What a sick and sad joke being perpetrated in our community by Mr. Moore.

Now that I have seen how far Michael has been willing to go …

the only question left is …

Just how far is Franklin going to go?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now is your chance to add your thoughts on this issue. Please click on the “Comments” link below and comment away.

I'm back ... and I'm ready for action!

2008-07-26T00:31:00.001-05:00

Hello folks … it has been a few weeks since I have made a posting here … unfortunately it has been just a little too busy.

I had a nice little vacation in Florida for better than a week. It was a nice relaxing time. But, I had a lot to catch up on when I got back to our lovely hamlet.

And boy the last two weeks have been interesting read in the papers, especially the latest articles and letters to the editor concerning our 3 candidates for City Council.

I will be getting out a few postings before election day … which I will remind everyone is August 5th! Yes, Tuesday, August 5th is your chance to select the best candidate to serve our community.

Also, I will remind folks this person will have the opportunity to serve our community for the next decade! Yes, decade. Whoever wins this election will complete the nearly two years left on Connie Karr’s unexpired term. Then, they would be eligible to be elected for the standard two consecutive 4-year terms spelled out in our City Charter.

So, this is a very important election. We as a community need to elect the candidate that has proven their leadership and has worked hard in our community.

There Is No Mystery In Kirkwood About Kmail

2008-07-12T00:25:00.005-05:00

Keith Williams and Kmail have struck again. Below is a portion of the latest diatribe from Keith:

Kirkwood Mystery # 2 (a lot easier to solve)

Kirkwood has Connie Karr's unexpired City Council seat up for election August 5. Kmail has written all three candidates via snail mail and email asking each candidate to send statements that our readers could digest and for all of Kirkwood to consider.

This community service is offered free of charge..., costs the candidate nothing but a little of his time....no stamps...no paid newspaper advertisements ....no expensive yard signs, no printing costs ... free ...... This is a community service Kmail is very proud to provide for the betterment and education of us all. The replies we have received so far are terrific and are very well articulated.

Recently we requested a follow-up statement from each candidate that we could present to you prior to the Election. Now here is the mystery...Two of the three candidates have offered materials both times we asked, but the only word we have received from the third candidate is a snail mail plea for a donation that was sent to my wife, a list of his supporters and a smiling picture of him with a flag in the background. Has Kmail gone wrong in requesting his comments? Why can't we get a response? What do we do next?

Kmail is going to hold up printing the second round of statements in the hope we can entice this one recalcitrant candidate to join in the fun. We sincerely hope that he does. The way I see it he has everything to gain and nothing to lose but your vote. We've done all we can so we will wait and see what transpires in the next few days. In the meantime, you front runners, please feel free to revise your excellent efforts recently submitted to Kmail. We will print what you offered or revise it as you wish. We thank you for your carefully submitted blurbs, we wish you well in your quest to better Kirkwood .

Keith Williams for Kirkwood and Kmail

You just got to love Keith’s newest attempt to bully yet another City Council candidate. I recently wrote a posting on Keith and his off the wall election proclamations in past Kmails. See the June 23rd posting entitled, The Coming Prognostications of Kmail.

How does Keith intend to further his election shake down in our community?

I mean he really pulls out all the smoke and mirrors in this Kmail. He proclaims that he wants statements from all 3 City Council candidates so his Kmail “readers could digest and for all of Kirkwood to consider.” Just when did Kmail reach all the 10,000 or so households in Kirkwood, Keith? Keith … your delusions are growing!

Then Keith really pours on the snake oil salesman pitch when he tries to present Kmail as a “community service … offered free of charge.” Yet, readers of this blog know that Keith has gone out of his way to exclude fellow Kirkwoodians from Kmail. You can be assured if you dare to challenge any of Keith’s all too often warped declarations you are going to be cut out of his “community service” of Kmail.

Keith then goes on to say Kmail “costs the candidate nothing but a little of his time.” But there needs to be a VERY HUGE disclaimer here. Because if you do not bow down and pay homage to Donkeith Corleowilliams and the Kmail family he is the Godfather of, then you just will not know what can show up in your bed politically the next morning. Keith’s Kmail offer is always one you can not refuse.

But, it only gets better. He goes on to say, "This is a community service Kmail is very proud to provide for the betterment and education of us all."

Kmail = Betterment and Education in our community. When?

Oh wait … Yes … the community was so bettered and so educated in a recent Kmail where our entire school board was blasted by “SH.” In a June 9th Kmail, “SH” said:

“I trust none of them. They are snakes who present information w/ their own spin on it. Then they act like people who call them out on it are the enemy. I am not the enemy. I just want fairness and reasonableness. As long as people have a myopic view that those running our schools can do no wrong, we're hopelessly screwed!”

“SH” is clearly a person that is devoid of the quality of character to publicly address our elected school board members, look them in the eye, make this statement and stand by it. So, this person slithers over to Keith, hides behind Kmail, so they together can make their political attacks with anonymity. So, who are the real snakes in this instance?

There Is No Mystery In Kirkwood About Kmail

Keith shows his and Kmail’s true colors with garbage like this. One on hand he spins himself and Kmail as a grand community service just trying to help our community's elected leaders. But, with the other hand he holds a club behind his back in which he is ready, willing and able to beat our elected leaders with whenever Keith concludes they have not held up his Kmail Party line.

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

Now is your opportunity to give your take on Kmail. But, remember I do not post unsigned comments to my blog postings. If you can not publicly stand by it, then that is a good indication you should not say it. But, please hit the “Comments” link below and share your thoughts.

The Tale of Two Newspapers

2008-07-07T01:50:00.002-05:00

The last two editions of the Webster-Kirkwood Times have shown just how out of touch with reality their editors really are with the community of Kirkwood. It is interesting how certain rules apply or do not apply for Kirkwood when it comes to Mailbag letters.

In the June 27th edition you had two Mailbag letters dealing with the community of Kirkwood.

The first was from Jen Hendricks on the issue of curbside recycling. Ms. Hendricks incorrectly asked why we did not have curbside recycling? Yet, we have had curbside recycling available to us since 1997 from a private hauler, Earth Circle Recycling. The Times’ editors should have known this was the case since they just got paid by City Hall for an “Eye On Kirkwood” full-page ad in the May 30th edition. In that ad the curbside recycling service was mentioned. Yet, no editors note clarifying the issue was placed with the Mailbag letter. This makes one wonder why the editors failed to place a note on this letter, when they have done this on other issues in other communities in the past.

In fact, in this past week’s edition we have a totally different story with Mr. Greg Marecek’s letter about signage for the Dairy Queen in Webster Groves. When Mr. Marecek incorrectly complained that the City if Webster Groves denied DQ a letter sign while allowing Flowerama to have a letter sign, there was an editors note. It seems Flowerama is in Shrewsbury and not Webster Groves, so the editors noted it.

This makes one wonder why the editors of the Times are just so keen on clarifying issues in Webster Groves and other communities, but do not seem to care about properly informing folks in Kirkwood on an issue? Could it be that the editorial bent of Mr. Bitikofer and Mr. Corrigan keeps them more interested in creating controversy in Kirkwood than being a news organization in our community?

No … come on Joe that just can not be the case … right? The Times does not have a bent. Remember Joe … Don “Scoop” Corrigan declares he has … “No Dog In That Fight.”

Well then there is the second Mailbag letter from the June 27th edition about the community of Kirkwood. It was some bizarre diatribe of nonsense from City Council candidate Michael Moore. What is interesting is that it was a 337-word long Mailbag letter. This is very interesting that Mr. Moore would be given the opportunity to have a letter of his printed just one week and one month away from an election. Will the Times’ be printing for the rest of the Kirkwood City Council candidates a 337-word letter before August 5th? Will they be doing that for each and every City Council candidate in all the other communities the Times serves during every election season? Or was this just a Times’ Kirkwood special?

The reason why I ask these questions is because when I read this past week’s edition, it clearly says in the upper-right hand corner of the page 6 Mailbag that letters need to be limited to 300 words. In fact, I have been denied printing of my letter submissions in the past by Times editors for being over their 300-word limit. In addition, I know other Kirkwood citizens who have been denied the printing of their letters because it was over the 300-word limit. Yet, Mr. Moore gets his nonsense printed in violation of their rules?

So, editors of the Times why two different double standards? Why the Tale of Two Newspapers?

Since there is a very prevalent bent from Mr. Bitikofer and Mr. Corrigan. Plus, they really do not seem to care about what our City Staff puts in the “Eye On Kirkwood.” Is their any good reason why our City tax dollars should be wasted with paying for any more ad space in their newspaper? It is clear with each edition that the Times has a hard time living up to being the self-proclaimed “Your Hometown Newspaper” in our community.

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

How do you weigh in on this issue? Hit the “Comments” link below and give us your thoughts.

The Coming Prognostications of Kmail

2008-06-23T17:57:00.009-05:00

With a new election season soon upon us in Kirkwood, a certain group of Kirkwoodians will be receiving Kmail election prognostications. The author of Kmail is Keith P. Williams Sr. Keith has a select group of Kirkwoodians he sends his emails to regarding various issues in our community. Keith has refused to allow me to receive his emails directly ever since I dared to question his grand proclamations from on high during the Prop C vote in 2007. Yet, several folks that receive his Kmails forward them on to me for a good chuckle.

Keith’s election prognostication Kmails are always a humorous read. It is especially funny to review them after the election happens. His previous two election prognostications have been so far from reality it is almost hillarious, if it were not so sad. I do not know ...

who makes more outrageous claims in our community …

Keith Williams? … or … Michael Moore?

Keith Williams and how he supposedly speaks for all of Kirkwood with Kmail? Michael Moore and his title of Ombudsman with his alleged Human Rights crusade in Kirkwood? It is a real toss up!

Keith really has a good shot at the top spot though. Take for example his first election prognostication about the Prop C – Property Tax Vote in June 2007.

Keith was rambling on in email after email trying everything he could to defeat the Prop C proposal. It was one excuse after another. Keith finally settled on showing how ignorant or clueless he was about our City’s budget reserves. He tried to paint the reserves as some sort of slush fund and how those funds should be used to bring City employee salaries in line instead of solidifying our community’s financial structure with Prop C. Keith either chose to ignore the realities of how that budget reserve needs to be used by our electric department through 2011 or he was just totally clueless about the facts. Since he never seems to go to City Council meetings or any City Board meetings that I know of, I can only suspect it was an issue of cluelessness. But, it was clear he was feverishly trying to defeat Prop C.

This brought on his totally over the top forecast. He supposedly had Kmail readers who in Keith’s world represent his real Kirkwood do a poll on Prop C. Here are Keith’s comments from his May 4, 2007 Kmail:

“Whoa ! Little did I realize how many DIFFERENT reasons people have for voting no on the upcomming Kirkwood Property Tax increase proposal on June 5th. Nor did I expect to get so many replies to the K-poll in only four or five hours after sending out the Kmail. The replies are still pouring in and I am not prepared to handle them as I anticipated. The long and short is that NO is winning over YES by about 4 to one. There are more "no opinions" than YES votes.”

Prop C is going to be defeated 4-to-1. When I read this I just chuckled for a good long while. The K-Fair Ward Proposal was only defeated 3.2-to-1. There was no way Prop C was going down harder than K-Fair’s mess. The response supporters of Prop C were getting from Kirkwood voters while canvassing around the community was too positive for it to get so badly defeated, if defeated at all.

The elections results on June 6, 2007 were YES – 2,280 and NO – 1,583. That is a 1.4-to-1 victory in Kirkwood. It is not the 4-to-1 defeat predicted in Keith’s Kmail Kirkwood.

The next set of election prognostications came in April of this year. Keith once again did a Kmail reader’s poll over who would be our next City Council members. But, prior to the poll Keith went after City Council candidate Tim Griffin for not subscribing to Kmail. Yes, in Keith’s mind if you do not subscribe to Kmail you are not worthy to be a City Council member. (Yet, he refuses to add me to the Kmail list. It is bizarre and boggling.) He even went so far as to keep Tim’s name off the list of “qualified” candidates for the Kmail poll (March 25, 2008 Kmail). What a fair and open poll Keith was running in his own little world! Here is what Keith sent out on April 7, 2008, just a day before the election:

“The K Poll final results as follows: The percentages are calculated on the total number of VOTES cast. (Some cast votes for only one or two candidates instead of voting for 3)

Grand Total

Gina Jaksetic 23%
Craig Conway 22%
Gary Reim 20%
Gerry Biedenstein 18%
Dan Kertz 11%
Tim Griffin 6% “

These poll results are just too foolish to take seriously. The reality in Kirkwood is that after all his years of service to this community there was no way that Tim Griffin was going to be defeated by the entire field of candidates. Especially, not after the way he stepped up to the plate following the February 7th tragedy to lead our community as Deputy Mayor. Plus, there was just no way Tim would be defeated 3-to-1 by four different candidates. If you know past election results in Kirkwood, you know City Council elections do not have very many 2-to-1 defeats, much less multiple 3-to-1 defeats of a sitting City Council member.

The April 8th City Council election results in order of votes received were as follows:
Tim Griffin 3525
Gerry Biedenstein 3189
Gina Jaksetic 2858
Craig Conway 2564
Gary Reim 2524
Dan Kertz 1768

The reality was the Kmail’s bottom candidate was actually the top candidate in our community. Obviously, Keith and his poll results live in their own Kmail world.

So, what will be Keith’s new Kmail election prognostications with the upcoming August 5th special election? What grand forecasts, proclamations and predictions will be made by Keith in the name of Kmail and Kirkwood?

No one really knows.

But I suspect we will still be asking the question …

who makes more outrageous claims in our community …

Keith Williams? … or … Michael Moore?

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

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.

He is Ombudsman of what?

2008-06-16T12:39:00.005-05:00

Since, my last posting our City’s logo is no longer being misused and abused by Michael Moore, William Thayer and the rest of the Committee for Unity. When I checked their web site Friday morning they had finally removed our City logo from their various pages.

But, what other issues are there with the information presented by Michael Moore and William Thayer on their web site.

Take a look at: http://www.stlcc.us/mmcco.htm

I am not quite sure if this page is a Michael Moore City Council campaign page or a Committee for Unity page. It is not easy to distinguish between the two with what I read. This is not the only thing hard to distinguish the difference between. I am trying to separate … fact from fiction.

The title of the page reads, “Michael Moore: Ombudsman For Kirkwood City Councilman”

I read it again … “Ombudsman.”

Just in case folks are not familiar with the term, Dictionary.com gives the following definitions for ombudsman: “a government official who hears and investigates complaints by private citizens against other officials or government agencies. “ or “a person who investigates and attempts to resolve complaints and problems, as between employees and an employer or between students and a university.” A simple explanation is … it is an official title of someone who acts as a mediator for two parties.

So, I start thinking about the term. If he is an “Ombudsman For Kirkwood City Councilman,”
then questions just start rolling …

He is Ombudsman of what? … Why is he Ombudsman? … He is Ombudsman for whom? … He is Ombudsman for where? … How is he Ombudsman? … He is Ombudsman for what? … When is he Ombudsman?

I have never seen Michael act in this capacity in our community. But, maybe I missed something?

Someone gave him this official title … right … so what is it all about? What two dissimilar or at times opposing parties selected him to be an official Ombudsman? There are just tons of unanswered questions.

But, what is not in question is the fact that he is using this official title as part of his City Council campaign on a page that also talks about his political group Committee for Unity which is supposedly focused on “Human Rights” in Kirkwood.

I am hoping Mr. Moore can clarify just what all this title of “Ombudsman” he supposedly has completely entails?

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

If you have any thoughts on this issue please click on the "Comments" link below and share those thoughts.

The Arrogance Is Unbelievable …

2008-06-09T11:51:00.009-05:00

Today I got onto City Council candidate Michael Moore’s website to find out more about his campaign platform. His site can be found at www.stlcc.us.

I click on the link FIRST HUMAN RIGHTS AND RELATIONS MEETING (url: http://www.stlcc.us/hrinfopg1.htm) under Michael’s picture. It takes me to a page advertising a meeting of Michael’s group “Committee for Unity.” So, I click on the Committee for Unity (url: http://www.stlcc.us/cu.htm) link and come to a web page with the City of Kirkwood’s logo on it.

What!?!?!

What is the logo of the City of Kirkwood doing on the main page of Michael’s political group “Committee for Unity?” Who gave Michael the right to use our community’s City logo for his own personal political agenda?

This has to be a fluke … right? No one would have the insolence to attempt to legitimize their personal political campaign by misusing the copyrighted logo of our City government?

So, I start clicking on the other links on “Committee for Unity’s” page.

Here are the other pages misusing our City’s logo:
http://www.stlcc.us/khraac.htm
http://www.stlcc.us/khraacweb.html
http://www.stlcc.us/hrissues.htm
http://www.stlcc.us/komplaintform.htm

How much more misleading can you get with what is being perpetrated on these pages? I am just shocked by this outright abuse of our City logo for a personal political agenda. This has to be either ignorance or arrogance to have gone this far. The answer to this question becomes clear as I read this statement at the top of each of these pages:

“An Initiative Charter Petition and a Human Rights Initiative are in construction and moving to completion by the Committee for Unity (CU) now. CU is also making some additional proposed changes in related areas of Kirkwood Human Rights Advisory And Awareness Commission and Kirkwood Human Rights and Relations including Web pages like this one to let Kirkwood citizens know how much the community wants and cares for each individual.”

I am just amazed at the gall of this statement given their actions. So, I have to find out who makes up the “Committee for Unity.” Well, according to the “Committee for Unity” main page their members are:

Michael Moore, Carl Jones Jr., Michele Jones, Elswerth Caviness, Lloyd Jones, Charles Howard, Charles Runnel, Yvette Howard, Share Thomas, Sharon Thomas, William Thayer, Reese E. Forbes, Christina OHallaron, Elaine Thayer and Lucy Thayer. Nonresident associates: Pastor Larry Addison, Ken Gordon, Grant A. Godwin, Cindy Neu, David Breeden, Karen Kalish and Arthur Grunmann.

Where do the members of “Committee for Unity” get the idea they can misuse and in this case abuse our City logo that belongs to all of us? Do these folks even have a clue about political campaign ethics? Much less any idea about what the term copyright or trademark means?

Yet, these folks have taken upon themselves to write and draft a new law to replace our present Human Rights Commission ordinance in our community?

Give me a break ... The Arrogance Is Unbelievable … but this is only the beginning with Michael Moore, William Thayer and the rest of the “Committee for Unity.”

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

If you are displeased with this abuse of our City logo by the “Committee for Unity” then please contact our Chief Administrative Officer Mike Brown at 822-5806 or brownmg@kirkwoodmo.org to let him know your thoughts. He ultimately has the task of protecting our community and its property from these kind of abuses.

If you have any thoughts on this posting, then please feel free to click on the "Comments" link below.

June Poll: Is the Kirkwood City Council Partisan or Nonpartisan?

2008-06-04T11:45:00.004-05:00

St. Louis Magazine in their May print edition carried one part of a 4-part article on the different aspects of the February 7th tragedy. The other three parts of the article were available in the on-line edition. I sent and email to the editors of St. Louis Magazine which became a blog posting on the incredibly poor job of reporting done in the two main parts of the 4-part article. That posting made on May 6th was entitled St. Biased … oops I mean … St. Louis Magazine's “The Kirkwood Shootings” Article. I have yet to receive a response from the author Ms. Jeanette Cooperman or her two editors Mr. Stephen Schenkenberg and Mr. Matthew Halverson.

... We interrupt this broadcast for an important message …

Is it not interesting how journalists are consistently writing articles and editorials trying to “right” some kind of “wrong” or bring some kind of “issue to light” and vehemently defend their actions as “free speech,” but somehow become incredibly quiet when they so miserably create the “wrong” themselves? Why do journalists seem to lack the ability to bring the “issue to light” when they blow it with an article or editorial? Why do they fail to “right” the “wrong” they created by equally exercising their “free speech” rights?

... Now back to your regularly scheduled program …

In Ms. Cooperman’s article she wrote this charge against our community from an unknown source …

"'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."

Yes, the reporters and editors of St. Louis Magazine want their readers to believe we do not have other Democrats on our City Council. These professional journalists want their readers to believe we have a partisan City Council in Kirkwood. They obviously exercised their trained and professional fact-checking skills before they printed that statement. Right? (wink)

So, in June’s Poll I ask you two questions:

When it comes to national political party affiliation – Republican, Democrat, etc. – do you think Kirkwood’s City Council is … partisan – drawn by part lines … or … nonpartisan – not drawn by party lines … or … do you not know?

When you vote for someone running for City Council what is the most important factor in your decision? The options are … Their national party affiliation – Republican, Democrat, etc. … or … Their public record of who they are what they have done in our community … or … Their picture on their campaign materials … or … Some other factor.

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

As always if you feel the need to make comment on this posting, then click the “Comments” link and have at it!

Results May Poll: Curbside Recycling in Kirkwood

2008-06-03T11:21:00.005-05:00

First, I want to say thanks to all of you that participated in this first poll.

The results were a bit surprising. Now I know this was not a scientific poll that used any form of analytical sampling. But, the results do point out some issues about curbside recycling in the community.

I found it interesting that the results for Q1 were almost equally split between whether or not there is “curbside recycling” available in Kirkwood.

The answer is – Yes … there is “curbside recycling” available in Kirkwood. A private hauler, Earth Circle, offers this service. In fact, Earth Circle has been providing this service in Kirkwood since 1997. The fee is only $50 every 6 months for a once a week pickup. For more information about Earth Circle's service see the link “Kirkwood Curbside Recycling” on the left under “useful area links.”

The most telling results were from Q2 on the appeal of “curbside recycling.” The poll mirrored the results of the 2004 election when “curbside recycling” was placed before us to vote on. By a 2-to-1 majority those that took the poll said “curbside recycling” did not appeal to them. The folks that took the poll said they already used our recyclery.

I am sure we are not done discussing the subject of “curbside recycling” in Kirkwood. But, it seems clear to me that we presently have the best of both worlds. Folks that care enough to recycle take advantage of our free recyclery without having to pay extra for a mandatory curbside service. Yet, for those that want a curbside service, they can get one for a very reasonable rate.

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

If you would like to share your thoughts on the poll or the subject of curbside recycling, please click on the "Comments" link below.

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

2008-05-22T11:11:00.014-05:00

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

2008-05-18T22:31:00.007-05:00

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

2008-05-08T10:49:00.006-05:00

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

2008-05-06T13:40:00.011-05:00

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!

2008-05-04T12:47:00.007-05:00

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!

Two Civic Lessons that Tell the True Tale of Our Kirkwood

2008-04-28T00:28:00.007-05:00

The tragic events of February 7th brought our small community into the world of the nation’s sensationalism driven, 24-hours-a-day “news cycle.” We saw the national press, the regional press and even the local press give their impressions of our town. Some was good and fair reporting. Some simply was not.

The most disappointing aspect of these last few months of media coverage has been the editorials from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Webster-Kirkwood Times and now the Kirkwood Call, the Kirkwood High School newspaper. Reading their editorials chime in on our April city election and our at-large city council system showed how little our area professional journalists and budding journalists have an ability to take a fair and accurate look at Kirkwood.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial page from March 3, 2008 entitled, “A Long Time Healing” so drastically missed the mark. The Kirkwood Call’s recent editorial page from their group of journalists in-training did the same by simply parroting the distorted view of the trained professionals at the Post. Their uninformed and baseless demand that Art McDonnell resign if he was elected Mayor proves what little they know about how our or any other city government actually works. The Post claimed to be speaking out for those who feel like “outsiders” or claim to be “disenfranchised” in Kirkwood’s political arena. The Call attempted to speak for the entire community. Yet, both of their demands would have once again taken away the city council’s ability to have a quorum and conduct business. This would have further stifled the regular functioning of our community’s legislative body that has taken place as a result of Council Member Joe Godi’s illness and the tragic loss of Council Member Connie Karr and Council Member Michael Lynch. For Art McDonnell to resign if elected Mayor in a critical time like this would be both irresponsible and ridiculous. In addition, the Post and now the Call editors missed the mark by never making a single demand of those who claim to be the “outsiders” or the “disenfranchised” in Kirkwood’s political arena. They never offered this as an opportunity for Kirkwoodians to rally around their surviving City Council members to further the healing in our community. This only further emphasizes their failure to take a fair and accurate look at Kirkwood in their editorials.

The Webster-Kirkwood Times editorial by Don “Scoop” Corrigan did no better. He blatantly ignored so many facts that are readily available to him when he tried to dig up the bone of contention of a ward system for Kirkwood. These issues are dealt in this blog with my postings “What is the name of Scoop's dog in Kirkwood?” and “What is a "mandate" at the Times Newspapers?” His editorial is equally both irresponsible and ridiculous. Ward systems in St. Louis County do not produce any more of the attributes he claimed they do in his editorial when compared to the three at-large systems in St. Louis County. The election data speaks for itself. All he simply had to do was look at his own ward in Sunset Hills.

After such irresponsible and ridiculous editorials, I have to wonder if there is hope for the trained professionals at the Post or the Times. But, maybe the budding journalists at the Kirkwood Call have a chance to figure out how to bring a fair and accurate look at an issue with their editorial page. What all three of these journalistic bodies need is to have their editors take some lessons in Civics.

The necessary re-training of these three sets of editors should have included attending the last two Kirkwood City Council meetings. Those who attended the April 17th and the April 24th City Council meetings saw the high level of public service that we have been blessed to have in this community. These last two meetings are two great real life Civics lessons that tell the true tale of our Kirkwood.

On April 17th we saw Mayor Mike Swoboda defy the odds, work past the near fatal injuries he received on February 7th and fulfill his duty by attending his final council meeting of his 8 year administration. It is the crowning testimony to his many years of hard work and determination to give back to our community by serving as a City Council member and as our Mayor. These many years of service fly in the face of those who try to claim the “outsiders” or the “disenfranchised” are held back by some “hidden agenda” by an “old guard establishment.” Mike Swoboda has never been an “old guard establishment” man. Yet, he provided over these years a message, a platform and a campaign with corresponding actions that surely appealed to Kirkwood voters. The proof is in the number of times he was re-elected to serve. The only thing Mike has in common with any “old guard establishment” is his self-sacrificing and courageous actions on this night were the epitome of the high level of public service that we have been blessed to have from so many in this community.

On April 24th we saw our new Mayor, a re-elected member and two new members be sworn in to establish our new City Council. The voters of Kirkwood spoke and selected who they wanted to lead our community on April 8th despite the caterwauling of a select few demanding a delay of the election. This newly formed group of the same “disenfranchised” residents found a very willing local, regional and even national press to propagate their message. It is clear from the turnout and the results, however, that the vast majority of voters know who they wanted to lead our community through these times of healing and rebuilding in Kirkwood. Fortunately, our new Mayor and our newly formed City Council acted in the best interests of the community of Kirkwood as a whole. The Mayor did not resign and no one on the Council demanded his resignation. Not even the new City Council member the “disenfranchised” publicly backed, Gina Jaksetic. Yet, we saw all of the members of the City Council, but especially our new Mayor Art McDonnell make a commitment to reach out to those who claim to be the “outsiders” or the “disenfranchised.” Funny thing was I did not see any of the leaders of the supposed “outsiders” or “disenfranchised” at the meeting. How can they now realistically claim to be “Kirkwood Citizens Coming Together for a Bright Future?”

What can be learned from these two great real life Civics lessons that tell the true tale of our Kirkwood?

First and foremost, our political and election system in Kirkwood is not broken or flawed as some in the press and a select few of Kirkwood residents like to claim. It has served and continues to serve our community well.

Secondly, the editors at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Webster-Kirkwood Times and the Kirkwood Call have a lot to learn about the community of Kirkwood before they attempt any more editorials. They have not served their profession well.

Now is your chance to give your answer to:

What can be learned from these two great real life Civics lessons that tell the true tale of our Kirkwood?

Just click on the comment link below.

What is the name of Scoop's dog in Kirkwood?

2008-04-17T00:16:00.009-05:00

On February 29, 2008 the Webster-Kirkwood Times’ ran an editorial from Editor-In-Chief Don “Scoop” Corrigan entitled “Lessons From A Class Long-Ago.” This editorial dealt with the some of the issues former City Council member Connie Karr talked about when she spoke to one of Scoop’s journalism classes at Webster University just prior to the tragedy of February 7, 2008. He quoted Mrs. Karr as saying,

"Everyone deserves a seat at the table in a democracy; it is part of the mission of journalists to make sure that those seats are available."

Scoop went on to say,

“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.

After the carnage at Kirkwood City Hall, students asked if wards would have made a difference: Would two aldermen from southeast Kirkwood been able to better negotiate the grievances of an outraged resident? Would they have interceded to rein in an unruly resident, before the situation spun out of control?

We will never know the answers to these questions. 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?”

I found Scoop’s rehashing of the ward debate after the tragedy as incredibly ignorant and outrageously insensitive. I clearly remember him in a previous editorial regarding the K-Fair 2003 ward proposal describing it as an “intense battle.” Scoop said in that previous editorial, “There's a lot of passion on both sides of this contentious issue, but I'm sorry, I just don't feel it.”

On March 4, 2008, I sent an email entitled ““Uninformed and Callous” to Scoop, other area journalists and several Kirkwood civic leaders questioning the purpose of his editorial. I said,

“Did I read an editorial trying to bring healing to the citizens of Kirkwood? Did I read an editorial trying to bring the citizens of Kirkwood together? Did I read an editorial pointing our community in a positive and productive direction?

No. Why would you ever want to do that at a time like this?

Instead you decide to do a piece that wants to rehash the most contentious issue of at least the past decade in Kirkwood. You want to pick up the 15-year-old wedge of contention of a ward proposal and drive it once again into our community. Yes, the ward issue and its present backers got their start in your paper all the way back to the “Robinson Woods/Craig Forrest Lane” issue in 1992.

Might I suggest before you write another editorial on wards that you at least pretend to be a journalist and do a little factual research. It would keep you from proving your ignorance of election results can only be out done by your insensitivity toward a community trying to heal.”

Ever since that editorial, I have heard a few Kirkwoodians parroting Scoop’s words at different meetings I have attended around town. I heard a call for a ward system during citizen’s comments at a City Council meeting. I heard a call for wards from a Mayoral write-in candidate at the Meacham Park Candidate forum. I heard wards offered as a solution by a small group discussion participant at a recent “Community for Understanding and Healing” meeting.

It is interesting how this all seems to “just happen” in Kirkwood. Or does it really “just happen?”

It is interesting how Scoop, the trained journalist who trains budding journalists, wants our community to ignore the fact that during the K-Fair 2003 ward proposal the issue of wards was researched and debated in our community for almost a year. It is interesting how Scoop, the editor of our "Hometown Newspaper," wants our community to ignore the fact that K-Fair’s 2003 ward proposal was soundly defeated 3.2-to-1 by the voters of Kirkwood. It is interesting how Scoop, the trained journalist, wants our community to ignore the facts regarding the election data of the ward community he lives and votes in.

What would drive a trained journalist talking about his class of budding journalists to ignore these three key facts, much less a myriad of other facts that contradict the statements made in his editorial about wards?

I do not have an answer to that question.

Clearly, though Scoop has gone out of his way with his editorial to get the ball rolling toward yet another “contentious” ward proposal in our community. We need, therefore, to call into question that previously mentioned editorial Scoop wrote regarding the K-Fair ward proposal back in 2003.

It was from July 25, 2003. It was artfully entitled, “No Dog In That Fight.”

Scoop said in that editorial,

“Nevertheless, skeptics abound -- they always know better. They call convinced that the latest coverage is biased. I will sometimes respond with: ‘Hey, I don't even have a dog in that fight.’ This means I just don't have a strong opinion one way the other.”

Well Scoop … one thing is for sure about the ward issue in Kirkwood … you can no longer claim “No Dog In That Fight” anymore. You have gone out of your way to have your dog dig up that bone of contention in Kirkwood.

So, what is the name of Scoop’s dog in Kirkwood?

Please take a moment and give your best guess of what is the name of Scoop’s dog in Kirkwood. Just click on the “Comments” link below. If your comment is just a guess of a name it can be totally anonymous. If it is a lengthier comment, then please abide by the posting policy and give your name.

What is a "mandate" at the Times Newspapers?

2008-04-13T02:15:00.009-05:00

It is interesting to note in one of the Times publications, the South County Times, that Mr. Svoboda's impressive win of Sunset Hills’ Mayoral race this last week is reported as a "mandate" from the people. The count was 1,248 to 574. I do not think anyone with any political sense could deny that a 2.1-to-1 victory has the true ring of a "mandate." Especially since with usually over 6,000 registered voters in Sunset Hills, the community had around a 30% voter turnout.

But, for some bizarre and unknown reason that concept of a “mandate” is not the case in the Webster-Kirkwood Times.

Kirkwood voters in November 2003 even more soundly defeated a ward proposal 3.2-to-1. The facts are 5,405 Kirkwoodians said "NO" to wards while only 1,667 said "YES" with a turnout of over 36% of voters.

Sounds like an even greater “mandate” to me. This is even more the case given the fact that the issue was researched and debated in Kirkwood for an entire year. Plus, the community as a whole spent over $50,000 campaigning and voting on the issue.

Yet, on February 29, 2008 the Times Editor-In-Chief and a Sunset Hills resident, Don "Scoop" Corrigan wrote an editorial pushing for wards in the community of Kirkwood.

I know it is hard to believe, but in a time of our community trying to heal from the unbelievable tragedy of February 7th, Scoop’s editorial brilliance is to rehash the 15-year-old bone of contention his newspaper has fostered in Kirkwood.

He ended his callous and uninformed editorial by saying,

“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?”

The question in our community is not about if wards are right or wrong as Scoop tries to present. This is not the question that any community would need to answer when deciding the issue. It is a question of which is better for our community.

The facts are the voters of Kirkwood clearly gave a “mandate.” In November 2003 voters once again overwhelmingly chose ... to use the better at-large system ... to elect our City Council. Facts Scoop chose to deny for some bizarre and unknown reason.

So, the question that needs to be asked of the Times…

What is a "mandate" Scoop?

Post your own thoughts on the issue by clicking the "Comments" link below:

Four Questions For A Better Kirkwood

2008-04-12T01:01:00.007-05:00

The Webster-Kirkwood Times for some reason decided not to print my Mailbag Letter submission below.

I was responding to Mr. Dick Reeves Mailbag letter from April 4, 2008 entitled "Three Suggestions For A Better Kirkwood." I do not know why the Times only wants to give one point of view, but the citizens of Kirkwood still need to read a response to Mr. Reeves "Suggestions." I hope our community will be able to get a response from Mr. Reeves to these questions. I will gladly post them for all to see.

It is time to bring the dialogue in the community back to reality rather than the just getting only the viewpoint of the same group of residents in Kirkwood who now go by the name "Kirkwood Citizens Coming Together For A Bright Future."

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

Four Questions For A Better Kirkwood

I am writing in response to Mr. Dick Reeves’ letter “Three Suggestions For A Better Kirkwood.” Here are 4 questions it would “behoove” Mr. Reeves to answer in his alleged quest for “A Better Kirkwood.”

1. When in all the decades you have lived in “Dear Ole Kirkwood” have you ever done anything positive, concrete and productive to deal with the “concerns of the residents of Meacham Park?” Your “suggestion” would carry much more weight if your shoulder was to the plow doing and having done what you want others to do to “benefit the entire Kirkwood family.”

2. Could you please provide a list of all the former Kirkwood residents who have been “forced to move from their homes” by “gigantic ‘McMansions?’” I would like to see their name, former address, the original purchase price and selling price of the home, in addtion a detailed description of exactly how the “McMansions” surrounding the house accomplished forcing the owner out. To make the claim that people should “feel and be secure in their homes” you must have documented proof of this phenomenon.

3. Why do you want the new City Council to violate the will of the people of “Dear Ole Kirkwood” and set aside their vote regarding curbside recycling? In April, 2004 our responsive City Council put this question before the people. Kirkwoodians declared by a margin of over 2.8 to 1 that we did not want curbside recycling. Now all of a sudden you want to be undemocratic and throw that vote away!

4. Have you “resolved” to “treat all people everywhere with respect, decency and kindness” like you suggested at the end of your letter? Your insulting and outrageous comments attacking a City Staff member who is a fellow Kirkwoodian at the March 6th City Council meeting, (which were appropriately stopped by Deputy Mayor Griffin), lacked all three of these attributes.

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

Post your own thoughts on the issue by clicking the "Comments" link below: