I'm not opposed to an audit, but here's an idea:
If the audit report contains no material finding of impropriety, David Humphries pays for it out of his own pocket.
Better yet, Mr. Humphries is able to and should offer to reimburse the City for the audit expense regardless of the outcome, if he cares so much.
Mr. Humphries, who tossed a comparative pittance JPS's way after the tornado in the warm afterglow of the moment, which had the convenient side effect of heading off accusations of indifference after spending (tens of?) millions to build a school to siphon off as many Joplin kids as there are wealthy, self-important parents willing to pay. Where has Mr. Humphries been the last couple of decades while Joplin's public schools struggled? Well, part of the time wasn't he spending money on big city lawyers fighting the City over his parking tickets?
He's a regular John Q., he is.
And now he appears from nowhere with an offer no one seems able to refuse but Joplin can't afford, and we're all supposed to thank him?
All you public education advocates who loiter on this site can swallow your pride and blow kisses, but not me.
Hypocrites. Would you think an audit proposal from Rex S. was a great idea too?
And don't forget to take advantage of the great new member offers at Millennium when you go by to sign!
9 comments:
Not spelling the man's name correctly denigrates your argument. Perhaps he would refund the cost if nothing is found. Instead of flinging insults, why don't you ask? I find the original donation quite generous. I'm not sure why you would smear that.
Not a strong comment. Just a bitter one.
Tell me again: why is it that Humphreys is the "bad" guy here?
The point is the hypocrisy of those who seem to be of the belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
It's not about fiscal propriety in Joplin. It's about playing gotcha all the time, and now one group of grievance mongers have their gotcha moment on the other--or think they do, in the form of Mr. Humphreys, who on any other day would be anathema to their advocacy of the public school system (check out some of the backhanded thank you's posted so far).
Humphreys isn't a "bad guy," but it's reasonable to ask why he steps up now, and what he's done to improve Joplin schools before we got to this point. If Huff's and Randy's and the Globe's and everyone else's motives can be questioned, why can't his, unless it's because to do so requires taking stock of your own motives?
Because he wants the city and school district of Joplin to spend $80,000-$100,000 each of taxpayer money for an aidit that that isn't needed for anything besides feeding his ego.
C.J. sounds a tad bitter in this piece.
There are millions of dollars on the line. $80k to $100k is what seems to be the pittance if millions are being misappropriated. Especially if there is additional information to support the previous city investigation. The "Lorraine Report" has received a lot of bad press, so a second opinion is needed there. Mr. Humphreys donated a significant amount of money to the schools, he has the right to know how it is being spent. Millions of dollars in insurance, millions of dollars in grants, millions of dollars in donations... and now it's all gone in the schools and very little public progress made in the tornado zone. I have to agree, I want an audit too.
To the commenter that authored this post: I really have no concern of whether or not Humphreys is a good guy or not. Ever since the audit was announced it's been the concern of Huff and his supporters to re-direct attention to the character of Humphreys, and that seems to be your purpose as well, although simultaneously self-distancing with an "I'm not opposed to an audit, but..." dance in order to seem as if you were sympathetic on some level. One regular commenter on here likes to point out when someone is "concern trolling". That is also what you are doing right now. This is misdirection.
So many of the comments on here have actually been along the lines of "I don't like Humphreys, but I'm okay with this." You are trying to make it look like some big compromising of morals. We're not doing anything but signing a petition for an audit. This is an opportunity to shut people up regardless of which side the results fall. The attempts to misdirect come across as incredibly defensive, and yours even more so in their condescending tone. You are positioning yourself as "above-it-all" but here participating in the fray none-the-less. You can't be above it and in it. The hypocrite is you.
A great deal of politics is in fact a series of compromises on various issues when interests align. However, there isn't much compromise in signing a petition. We aren't giving anything up. To not sign the petition would be giving up the opportunity to resolve this endless fight. The vitriol and defensiveness that comes from administration supporters and people like yourself is more suspicious than anything, even though you have tried to re-frame it as something that is more easily taken down, straw-man style. That's your m.o., yes?
I agree that the vitriol and the personal attacks and the defensiveness toward the man only create more suspicion. It makes people want to shine some light on the truth (good or bad) even more. To me, nothing matters except that he is willing to call for and stand behind an audit that many taxpayers in the community want. I don't understand the folks who blindly say the audit isn't needed. How do they know? And how can they say a $500,000 donation is a "pittance," "comparative" or otherwise?
So it will cost taxpayers two or three dollars each for an audit that will ensure the tens of millions we are already paying plus the many more millions in donations, insurance funds, and state and federal funds are being spent appropriately. That sounds like a good investment to me.
Post a Comment