Toellner Tells it

Are the internet and social media leveling the playing field in local elections?

Four years ago was probably my first real involvement in any ways into Kansas City politics. I made a conscious decision to go out to a lot of the candidate forums, meet the candidates, RSS feed their blogs, etc.  I found many candidates that I really liked, that were really mostly just neighborhood activists that wanted to run for city council and make an improvement in Kansas City. Most were fairly accomplished in their roles in neighborhoods and on city committees.

Most then got few votes in the primaries and few advanced to the general election -- and others got crushed by candidates with a lot of money in the general election.

So this go around, I kind of had a better idea of what to expect.  Small-budget candidates would have a tough road to hoe, would not get a lot of endorsements from large organizations (who I still think are more concerned with endorsing who they think will win so they can then go back and ask favors later vs choosing who will represent their interests the best).

Yet, I was somewhat pleasantly surprised by the election results.

While Mike Burke got the support of virtually the who's who of Kansas City politics and raised nearly 70% more money than Sly James, James, a political outsider (who, admittedly had plenty of support of his own), earned the mayorship in last week's vote.

Meanwhile, some of the neighborhood activists did pretty well in the council races as well. I was pleased to see Jermaine Reed get 75% of the votes in his district in spite of having less money, and less name recognition than incumbant Sharon Sanders Brooks.  I was also impressed that Reverend Brooks won the 5th district seat in spite of having half the money as Ken Bacchus (who also benefited from more name recognition and having had been formerly on the city council.

Even a few other neighborhood candidates ran very tight races in spite of having less money. Brandon Ellington earned 45% of the votes in spite of operating on a shoestring budget that was 25% of that of incumbant Melba Curls and Tracy Ward earned 40% of the vote, in spite of having only raised around $4,000 compared to her opponent, Scott Taylor, who raised $61,000. 

While I was a big fan of both Ellington and Ward, I have to note that I feel a little optimism for "the little guys" of Kansas City politics. Whereas four years ago I think many of these smaller budgeted campaigns would have made little noise in the grand scheme of KC politics, I think the internet and social media have played a vital role in helping these candidates who are not among the political elites in KC to reach out to voters in a more cost-effective way.  And I think their ability to get their stances out on issues, and to reach constituents, in a way that is much more cost-effective than mailings and traditional advertising.

It is also simply amazing that there were many candidates (Sharon Sanders Brooks, Melba Curls, Ken Bachhus) who had no online presence at all).

Having money is still important. The candidate with the most money still won in the majority of cases. But I think the gap is closing....and I think in the long run that will be good for KC politics - so that the people with the best ideas get elected, and not just the person with the most money or endorsements.

Tony actually posted the budgets and the number of votes for each political candidate this morning...which saved me a little work in writing this post, so thanks for that.

Fact-checking the Star's editorial on Missouri Prop B

Yesterday, the Kansas City Star posted an editorial opinion in reaction to the Missouri Senate's Actions regarding Proposition B. 

However, when I read their editorial, there are no fewer than 3 major factual errors in their 4 paragraphs that actually talke about the law -- which makes me wonder, did they actually read the law they're commenting on?

On Thursday, the Missouri Senate passed SB 113.  You can read the law in its entirety here. The law is meant to replace Proposition B, that was voted in as a citizen's initiative by a 51.6% margin in November. You can read the Star's editorial without my comments here, but below is the editorial, with my comments in Blue.

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

Apparently determined to preserve Missouri’s status as the nation’s “puppy mill capital,” the state Senate has passed legislation dismantling the humane protections approved by voters in November.

The bill gives breeders permission to continue business as usual — stacking dogs in wire cages (This is specifically prohibited in 273.347 Section 1 --beginning the very last paragraph on page 6), subjecting them to extreme heat and cold (prohibited on lines 82 and 83), and depriving them of clean water.

Breeders who repeatedly violate the law would be subject to misdemeanor charges, not felony charges as called for in the voter-approved Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act (The voter approved initiative never called for felony charges either. Lines 106-111 detail the criminal statutes under Prop B (which have been removed) and they only call for Class C misdemeanors for first offenses, and Class A misdemeanors for repeat offenses. These are the same classes of penalties detailed in SB 113 -- the new criminal statutes are in section 273.347 lines 17-21 . Operators also could no longer be limited to 50 breeding dogs at one time.

Passing the bill on a 20-14 vote, senators showed an arrogant disrespect for Missourians who passed Prop B with 51.6 percent of the vote.

Lawmakers preposterously claim that voters didn’t understand the ballot proposition. (It certainly appears that if voters were getting their information about the ballot proposition from the local newspaper of record here in KC, they may not have actually understood what they were voting on).  

Here is what Missourians understood: The state’s dog-breeding industry is riddled with problems. Raids turn up starved, mangy and tormented animals. Pet stores and consumers across the country have complained about problems with Missouri-bred puppies. The state legislature, held hostage to interests that regard dogs as just another form of livestock, has ignored the problems for years. (In fairness to the Senate, along with the other changes to Prop B, some that needed to be done, some that didn't, they also increased the maximum licensing fees for breeding operations, something that was recommended by the Missouri State Auditor and the Better Business Bureau. The increased fees will enable the state to better enforce current regulations, as well as the regulations under SB 113.  It has been well-documented that enforcement has been a huge issue.  Meanwhile, SB 113 also mandates a $25 a year fee for all breeding operations, shelters, rescues and pounds that go to fund Operation Bark Alert -- which has led to the closing down of 360+ breeding operations and led to the rescue of more than 4500 dogs in less than 2 years of operation. The Star excluded this from their commentary).

All senators from Jackson, Clay and Platte counties voted “no” on the bill Thursday, except for Victor Callahan of Independence, who also was the only Democrat to vote against the wishes of the state’s voters. Sen. David Pearce, a Republican who represents Cass County, voted yes.

The move to undo Proposition B could still be halted by the House or by a veto from Gov. Jay Nixon. One or the other needs to stop this affront to dogs and to Missouri voters.

(And the Star needs to stop this affront to its readers. Really, if you're going to call out the Senate for changing a law, at least know what it is the law says). The citizens in this city deserve better than this type of commentary and misinformation. 

For a more detailed breakdown on Prop B, I've broken it down over at the KC Dog Blog. 

Central Standard

Earlier today, I got the opportunity to be on KCUR's Central Standard with Jabulani Leffall on the topic of Bloggers with Local Impact.

Featured on the show was Tony Botello of Tony's Kansas City, Jeff Haught (Bull E Vard) of KC Beer Blog, Celeste Lindell of Average Jane and May Evans of May's Machette - and me, representing this blog (if you're here, and confused by Central Standard's Twitter feeds, I also write another blog, KC Dog Blog, which is my handle for my Twitter account).

Anyway, it was fun to be a part of the program and talking about blogging, why we all got into blogging, and the niche that blogging fills in the local media environment where old-school media is falling short due to continued cuts. Check out the podcast of the show here.

KCMO terminates shelter contract opening up greater opportunities for KCMO pets

 Today, the city of Kansas City, MO announced that it was terminating the contract with Veterinary Management Corp (owned by Dr.Wayne Steckelberg) -- who has been running the shelter for the past 2 years.  The city issued a press release today (I can't find it on the city's website, but KC Dog Advocates posted on their facebook page) announcing that they will be seeking proposals for new organizations to run the shelter.  An official RFP is expected to go out in the coming weeks, with proposals likely due back sometime around April 11.

The contract termination comes amid some recent controversy surrounding the shelter.  On January 18th, several high-profile folks in the city, including Britton Hunter, a board member of Halfway Home Pet Adoptions (an organization that oversees the shelter management), Teresa Johnson, the Executive Director at Animal Haven, a successful No Kill shelter in the metro, and Jackson County Legislator Denny Waits, filed a formal complaint against VMC saying that they were in violation of the city contract (you can read the entire complaint here).

The complaint features a series of allegatoins with 12 specific examples of these allegations.  Among the specific allegations:

1) Allowing an animal to die in its cage after being left untreated for 3 days in spite of several notifications by an employee of the dog's deteriorating health

2) Some faulty record keeping in terms of health care provided

3) A three-month old kitten that was listed as "adopted" was actually injured during surgery, left untreated, and then euthanized the next day. The family that was waiting to adopt this particular kitten had a different kitten slipped in its place.

4) A dog that entered the shelter with a large, painful tumor that was left completely untreated for 10 days at the shelter before the dog was euthanized.

All four allegations (as well as the others listed in the complaint), if true, would be in clear violation of VMC's contract with the city.  All of the allegations are currently under review by the state veterinary medical board. 

The city, wisely, has taken the allegations seriously and requested that Dr. Steckelberg take administrative leave (according to quotes by City Councilwoman Cindy Circo in an article written by The Pitch, this would be standard for any similar situation involving another city employee).  Dr. Steckelberg refused to take his leave, so the city announced it would terminate his contract.

Dr. Steckelberg has filed a counter to these allegations; and the group has filed a response to Dr. Steckelberg's response. (I confess that this one is 82 pages long and just filed yesterday, so I have not read it yet).

However, at this point, regardles of how the official review goes, the city has opted to not renew VMC's contract and is seeking more bids.

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

Two years ago, the City Council decided to privatize the city's animal shelter and put the duties of running the shelter into the hands of a private group.  Not only did the move save the city an estimated $175,000 a year in expenses and the hope was that it would help create more positive outcomes for the animals.  And the results have proven that hope to be true.

In 2007 the city shelter, under the city's management, killed 6,769 dogs and cats.  In 2008 the city killed 4,912. 

In 2009, with nearly a year of managing the shelter under their belts, the folks with VMC killed 3,101 dogs and cats -- a 37% decrease in killing.  The number dropped again in 2010, to 2,722 dogs and cats.

In spite of the obvious improvements that came from privatizing the shelter, there has been increasing frustration by many of the shelter volunteers and some of the staff members regarding how the shelter was being managed and quality of care animals were receiving. I think most who have been involved with the shelter, have acknowledged the improvements that have been made, but also note that a change in management was going to be necessary if the shelter were to make the next step in improvements.

--------

In response to the allegations, VMC released the press release to the left.  They're response was to "relieve volunteers of the burden of dog walking".  While they weren't refusing volunteer help, they, in essence are now refusing to let volunteers handle the dogs and cats, which keeps them out of the shelter area, and thus, out of sight of all of the veterinary activities at the shelter. 

I guess the thinking is, if no one sees what is going on, no one can report it.

This type of abrupt policy is in direct opposition to 1983 laws (commonly known as whistle-blower laws) that protect people who speak out from retaliaton.  No longer having access to walking dogs would fall under the protections for these laws and would be seen as retaliation.

So their response to the allegations is to then potentially cause more problems for themselves and the city.

Meanwhile, the volunteers at the shelter have been working very hard over the last 20 months to help save the lives of animals. Without the vols having as much access to the animals, it will take away one of the biggest success stories for the shelter -- which was the hard work of the volunteers to help save the lives of the animals. 

Without that access (and current volunteers will now have to re-apply and be interviewed to be volunteers), many animal lives will inevitably be lost in the next 7 weeks until new shelter management takes over on May 1.

What's next

The great news is that so far, I've not heard any talk from city hall about the city taking over the contract.  Privatization has clearly shown itself to be a superior option to city control -- both in terms of total budget, and in animal lives saved.

Two years ago, none of the major rescue groups in the city stepped forward to bid on the contract (there were only two bids, and Dr. Steckelberg's was easily the right choice between the two) in part because the shelter situation was such a mess under the city management. The task of saving the lives of all the healthy animals at the shelter now seems achievable. 

Given this, I would expect one or more of the accomplished shelter organizations in this city to step up and bid on the contract and for the city to have some good options in front of it.  A well-managed shelter that embraces its volunteers, the community, and the new and innovative sheltering policies that have been used successfully in other cities (including a consistent off-site adoption program),  has every reason to believe that KCMO can achieve No Kill.  There are already generous volunteers and donors in place that are committed to its success.

No extra money needed. Only good leadership.

Our situation here is not much different than the situation that faced Austin, TX only a couple of years ago.  And, after years of high kill rates, that open-admission shelter has now seen 3 consecutive months of 90+% save rates. Th

 As the center of the Animal Health Corridor, Kansas City has an opportunity to be a case study in how a well-run animal-shelter system.  Regardless of whether or not the allegations against VMC are true, expanding the search for new management for the shelter opens up an outstanding opportunity for the animals in KC, and for this city to provide a service to its taxpayers that we all can be proud of.

Live Strong Sporting Park

Earlier today, Sporting Kansas City announced that in a cooperation with Lance Armstrong's Live Strong Charity the name of the new stadium near the Legends will be called LiveStrong Sporting Park.

This is obviously a very high-profile charity to associate a sports stadium with -- and is very different than the typical corporate-sponsorship type of sports stadium name. Apparently, Armstrong's relationship with the Stowers Institute which does a lot of cancer research led him to be interested in this sponsorship here in KC. 

There are a lot of exciting things happening for Sporting Kansas City -- with the name change, the new stadium, and the new stadium name. They are a great, and sadly often overlooked, addition to the Kansas City environment and hopefully this new relationship will bring more visibility to the team, the cause, and the Stowers Institute.

Footage of the announcement is here.