Joplin Progress Committee did not buy the election

The April 8 Joplin municipal and Joplin R-8 Board of Education elections were the first ones held since the formation of the secretive Joplin Progress Committee, a group of business interests that has indicated it wants the city to continue in the direction it has been going under the leadership of former City Manager Mark Rohr and R-8 Superintendent C. J. Huff.

Bill Scearce said last week that this was the first time that there was an organized effort to buy the election.

He was right, but that was not what happened.

Starting with the board of education race- The top vote-getter, former Irving Elementary Principal Debbie Fort, was not endorsed by the committee. Number two, Lynda Banwart, probably did not need the committee's endorsement or its money. While Randy Steele may have benefited more than Mrs. Banwart from the committee's support, I would say it came down to name recognition. Shawn McGrew, Jeff Flowers, and Jeff Koch were all supported by the committee, though Koch did not accept any money. Flowers' arrogant attitude in the candidate forum and elsewhere did not help him a bit.

The Joplin City Council race was a bit different. The Joplin Progress Committee endorsed all of the winners, but that does not exactly make it a power broker. Ryan Stanley, Miranda Lewis, and Mike Seibert were going to win anyway, whether they had the committee's support or not. Stanley and Mrs. Lewis are attractive, civic-minded candidates who came across well, both in their advertising and during the candidate forum (and it should be remembered that Mrs. Lewis did not accept any of the committee's money) The vote total for Mike Woolston, who was supported by the committee was considerably less than for the other two. Seibert was the incumbent who did not vote to fire Mark Rohr.

The decision came down to voters being fed up with incumbents and not being happy about the firing of Rohr, the amount of time and effort it took to get the Loraine Report released, and paying Tom Loraine more than what was called for in his contract.

The Joplin Globe played a bigger role in the city election than the Joplin Progress Committee. The newspaper's selective handling of the news kept readers from knowing that the chaos surrounding Mark Rohr was simply the latest chapter in a saga that has occurred in every community in which Rohr has been city manager. The Globe also pushed hard for the release of the Loraine report then never bothered to print anything about the allegations that were made against Woolston. The interviews do not put Woolston in a good light. The Globe also has never told its readers about the checkered history of the city's master developer Wallace-Bajjali.

The Joplin Progress Committee's inaugural flight was not particularly triumphant, but then again, it is just starting. The danger this group, which has access to considerable cash and is willing to use it to further its ends, poses to our democratic process, is a grave one.

After revealing its existence in November, the Joplin Globe played it down the rest of the election cycle. It is vital for the protection of our political process that we never stop examining who is putting money into that process and what they are hoping to get from that money.