When I am wrong, I will readily admit it, as I was earlier when I wrote that Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, did not meet with Moark expansion opponents. Though it appears he did his level best to avoid meeting with representatives of Southwest Missouri Citizens Against Moark Expansion (SWMCALME), he finally met with several members of the group Wednesday, July 20, following a Neosho Lions Club luncheon in the Neosho Municipal Auditorium.
A transcript of that meeting shows Nodler saying, "Ethical rules of the state of Missouri prevent me from attempting to influence the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) on regulatory procedures. In fact, it would probably be a violation of federal integrity laws if I interfered with their regulatory process. I wouldn't do that and not only does the law say that, but it would be unethical for me to do that."
The transcript does not indicate that Nodler told the Moark opponents that only six days earlier his campaign committee accepted a maximum $600 contribution from N.B. Inc., of Neosho, because he failed to mention that fact. The phone book does not list an N. B. Inc., in Neosho, but the address listed for the company, 1100 Blair Avenue, is where Moark's Neosho office is located as the accompanying photo from the Neosho Area Chamber of Commerce 2006 Business Directory shows. (Note: As a reader points out, the N. B. is Nutra Blend, a fully owned subsidiary of Land O'Lakes, Moark's parent company.)
This was not the first contribution Nodler had received from N. B. Inc. Missouri Ethics Commission records show that on Sept. 10, 2001, N. B., contributed $550 to Nodler's 2002 senatorial campaign. During that same election cycle, he received a $500 contribution from the Poultry Federation of Missouri, and $200 from Moark official Hollis Osborne.
One of the early contributors to the Nodler Leadership PAC when it was formed in 2003 was Moark official Jerry Wells, who gave $1,000.
Wells has also been spreading around money during the past few months, as noted in the Nov. 13 Turner Report. On the same day, May 23, that more than 300 people filed into the Neosho Municipal Auditorium to discuss the impact of Moark's proposed expansion of its Neosho facilities, Wells contributed the maximum $1,200 to Governor Matt Blunt's campaign committee. It also appears that Wells' generosity received a payback in the form of a private audience with the governor at the height of the Moark controversy.
During his July 20 meeting with the Moark opposition group, Nodler confirmed the one-on-one session between Wells and the governor, but insisted it had nothing to do with the Neosho expansion.
According to the transcript, Nodler said, "I know all about Jerry Wells' meeting with the governor and it has nothing to do with this issue at all. His meeting with the governor had to do with the realignment of administrative largesses at the Department of Labor after the last changes in worker's compensation."
Later, documents obtained by the Moark opposition group under the Freedom of Information Act indicate the senator arranged for a meeting between Wells and DNR officials, and not to talk about administrative largesses at the DNR.
Though Nodler made no offer to help the constituents from his hometown who were opposing the expansion to gain an audience with officials from the state agency, he apparently went out of his way to accommodate Wells and Moark.
According to the e-mail sent by DNR Director Doyle Childers to one of his subordinates, "Sen. Nodler asked that DNR meet with Mr. Wells, saying that this meeting is not an attempt to influence but to discuss approval process timeline and when they might know and what to expect."
During Nodler's meeting with the Moark opponents, the transcript indicates he told them, "I not only represent you all, but I also represent Moark. They're constituents in my district. They are as entitled to representation from me as you are and they will receive equal representation as you do."
Well, I suppose equal representation should have included a meeting with Blunt for the anti-expansion group as well. Political contributions seem to equate bribes to me, especially if it buys you one on one time with the govenor. This is far from "high ethical standards".
ReplyDeleteI have no idea why Nodler is so upset with Rep Wilson? It seems to me that Wilson, even though he is not much better, attempted to help the anti-expansion group even though he is clearly all about helping business.
ReplyDeleteSeems the official log left out the part of an angry Gary shaking his finger at members of that group, telling them it was their own "damned" fault because they did not put county zoning laws into place years ago. I guess Gary knows by now that he faces a serious threat to retaining his seat and that a member of this group will emerge to challenge him with over 4000 votes already in his pocket. Lots of luck in the real world Gary.
ReplyDeleteTry Nutri Blend, a Moark company, for NB.
ReplyDeleteMr. Turner:
ReplyDeleteI do not expect to respond further to your blog comments. Your ability to report erroneously outstrips my time to respond. I will point out several things about this latest piece that are just obvious.
First, I am aware of a meeting in the summer between Mr. Wells and the Governor. While I was not at the meeting I was told by the participants and later the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations that the meeting dealt exclusively with the issue of the realignment of administrative law judges (not largesse’s) at the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. I know of no meeting between Mr. Wells and the Governor on the Moark issue.
The only other meeting I know anything about was a meeting between Mr. Wells and Director Childers at which Mr. Wells was to raise questions about the timeline for a decision. When I requested that meeting, I made it clear to Director Childers that the only subject Mr. Wells requested was on the timeline issue. This was not the first meeting I requested from Director Childers on the Moark issue. At the request of Mr. Rick Bussey, I had earlier asked Director Childers to hold a public hearing on the Moark permit request. Director Childers responded affirmatively to the request from Mr. Bussey that I had presented to him and the first public hearing on the permit resulted from that request. For the record, that’s one meeting requested for the company and one for the opponents, both of whom are my constituents, and neither request in any way interfered with the regulatory process!
The only request from this group for a meeting with me resulted in the July 20th meeting following a Rotary Club meeting at the auditorium (I don’t know about a Lion’s Club meeting). This meeting was requested at a very busy time when I was involved in official meetings both in and out of the State on official Senate business, but I was able to accommodate the request. Following this meeting I asked my assistant Tom Flanigan to try to attend future meetings of the group to keep up with their concerns. Mr. Flanigan did just that.
With regard to the size of this group, the total number of signatures represents about 5% of the population of Newton County, while important, it does not represent a majority although a majority may or may not agree with the sentiments expressed by the group. I will not place myself in a position of doing whatever any 5% of my constituents demand on any issue. The petition also makes no request for legislators to violate separation of powers and interfere with regulatory actions. The petition opposes the permit and requests elected officials to “take an active role on behalf of their constituents regarding this issue by planning for the future.” That is exactly what Senate Bill 591 does.
Among the signers of that petition are members of my family and contributors to my election campaign. I believe that I have received more financial support from opponents of the Moark expansion than from individuals or corporations related to it. I can assure you that those petition signers have made it clear to me that they in no way request that I violate ethics by improperly interfering with ongoing regulatory matters.
This is information that an honest and ethical journalist would have known before circulating inflammatory and false impressions. It is not news that there are partisans that oppose me politically that is to be expected in our democratic system. Just remember that what you get on this site is partisan propaganda and often factually in error.
Senator Gary Nodler
Actually a lot of us voted for you once Gary but hopefully nobody will hold that against us when we don't vote for you next time round. Guess your movie manners were just a bit too much for us. You can try to spin it any way your want, the bottom line is, you just are not the man for the job anymore.
ReplyDeleteI actually have gained respect for Mr. Nodler for responding in a civil intelligent manner. Randy, you have attacked the senator on several issues but it would be nice to see you actually respond to him in the same civilized "tone". As far as I have noticed, you have yet to do that. I think this kind of conversation could be constructive and let Mr. Nodler know what some of the concerns are with his local patrons.
ReplyDeleteGary,
ReplyDeleteIt would be my suggestion that you stop reading Randy's blog site. Everytime you respond concerning the Moark issue, you only seem to get egg on your face. You would be more suited doing that big important legislative stuff like introducing bills after the fact.
Did everyone get their violens out after reading Mr. Nodler's post?
ReplyDeleteI notice he uses the prefix Senator like it really means something to be a State Senator. This guy is all about himself and if you think he is going to listen to or do anything to help the ordinary people in his district then you just got fooled pretty good in the last election.
ReplyDeleteIn Nodler's letter I see Nodler doing a lot of requesting and asking everyone but the people. That's sad.
ReplyDeleteI think you finally rattled his chain. I'm hoping we will find someone better to take his place this year. Maybe he can lobby for big business then.
ReplyDeleteGary,
ReplyDeleteeveryone knows that the majority of newton county lives in the Joplin and seneca Areas, and that the 5% you are so free talking about is not accurate. What percent of the neosho population that has to breathe the stench of mo ark signed the petition.
Aw gee Gary, you weasel word a good game but what have you actually done for us lately?
ReplyDeleteSorry you are so busy, Senator. Perhaps you should take a break, go to a free afternoon weekday movie and kick a few cripples. That should make you feel better.
ReplyDeleteFor those interested, NeoshoForums.com has a recording of the above meeting (between Nodler and anti-Moark expansion folks) available... It is approximately an hour in length, making the file size around 331+MB... So those of you on dial-up may want a friend w/ broadband to burn this to disc for you instead of DL'ing it yourself. Or I would be happy to mail a copy to those interested.
ReplyDeleteFile: http://www.neoshoforums.com/Gary_Nodler_Meeting.wav
This taped message is very informative. Senator Nodler was very patient and honest with this group even when they raised their voices and became emotional. It is also interesting that what he said is consistent with what he has done. They asked him to try to interfere with the permit process and he said he wouldn’t he explained why it was unethical and I think it was Betz that said he would "sleep with the devil" to stop the permit. He made it clear that he was requesting wrong behavior from the Senator. They asked him if he would introduce legislation to increase enforcement and he said he might just do that, and of course he has. Thank God we have someone as honest as Gary Nodler representing us. And thanks for putting up the link to show that the accusations against the Senator are untrue!
ReplyDeleteI just listened to this tape too. Nodler must have put up the link. It sure makes him look good and his critics look foolish!
ReplyDeleteBy the way if you listen to the tape it is clear that when Senator Nodler said that citizens should take responsibility for not supporting zoning, he didn't say it was their own "damned fault” these tapes do come in handy and show what liars these critics really are!
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter how it is spun, Gary Nodler has lost the confidence of the people here and those people do not want him pretending to represent them anymore. It doesn't matter whether Gary is kissed out or thrown out, just as long as he is out.
ReplyDeleteSenator Nodler "I not only represent you all, but I also represent Moark. They're constituents in my district. They are as entitled to representation from me as you are and they will receive equal representation as you do."
ReplyDeleteIn 1886, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the US Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person ...
Could these have been activist judges? A number of the Supremes at that time had previously been railroad attorneys.
And we have been dealing with the fallout ever since. Does Moark vote? Does Moark have feelings other than for the bottom line? Does Moark show emotion? Does Moark greive? Moark is talked about in the same breath with people. I am not so sure that Moark is a person. People work for and own stock in Moark but none of them are Moark. Moark's corporate HQ is outside St. Louis, MO. Is there equal representation for St.Louis or Neosho? What do you think?
Nodler made a mistake in his letter, the petition represents about 5% of Newton County but only between 1 and 2 % of his district. He is over-representing Moark opponents!
ReplyDeleteGary well done well done. I know more than you all on this and I know they are doing the best they can for their futures and ours.
ReplyDelete