Debbie Fort's tornado statement nowhere to be found in Joplin Globe coverage

No statement drew as much attention Monday night during the Joplin R-8 Board of Education Candidate Forum than Debbie Fort's response to incumbent board member Randy Steele's attempt to blame high teacher turnover in the Joplin School District on the tornado.

"I am sick to death of blaming the tornado," she said.

While her statement was specifically in response to a question about teacher turnover and she offered other, more logical causes for the mass exit of teachers from the district, Debbie Fort said the words that many people have been thinking for a long time- it is time to stop using the tornado as a crutch for everything.

It has been used as an excuse not only for high teacher turnover, but also for incredible overspending of taxpayer money and for sweeping changes that seem to be designed more for show than for actual educational value.

With that one sentence, Debbie Fort sounded a "stop the nonsense" rallying cry that was easily the top moment in the one hour forum.

Naturally, the quote did not make today's Joplin Globe coverage.

To be fair, reporter Emily Younker did hit some of the other high points of the forum, including Board President Jeff Flowers' comment "I think we're open and honest in everything we do," and David Guilford's retort that the board's policy on public comment is "closing the door completely on the taxpayer. I think it's wrong and it's very detrimental to our district and our students."

So why didn't Debbie Fort's comment make the pages of the area's newspaper of record?

Sadly, no entity has been move invested in prolonging the story of Joplin's continued suffering from the tornado than the Joplin Globe.

My guess is Emily Younker had no idea how Debbie Fort's line would resonate with the public.

Joplin Globe guest columnist: Morale low in Joplin R-8 because teachers know they are failures

In his latest effort to play a key role in the Joplin R-8 Board of Education race, frequent Joplin Globe guest columnist Anson Burlingame blames low morale and high turnover in the school district on incompetent teachers. In a section of his latest blog, Burlingame, directing his attack at board candidates Debbie Fort and Jeff Koch, makes the case that we should elect them since he describes the school district as a "failing organization" and who in the world would want to elect board candidates who have been there for the past eight years or ones who are backing the current administration:

My simple point, one learned over a life time of professional experience is that good performance, great performance, where it counts breeds superior morale. On the other hand, failing organizations have very low morale and people bail out of such organizations all the time, seeking greener grass on the other side of the fence.

I also note from past experience that when people complain about poor morale, they usually mean their own morale. And their morale is driven by a deep sense of failing to measure up to good standards. They are simply afraid of being fired for poor performance and lay that blame on supervisors, certainly not their own obvious shortcomings in a professional venue.

Burlingame appears to be labeling the Joplin R-8 School District as a "failing organization," but lays none of the blame on the administrators.

That goes along with some of the statements made by Superintendent C.J. Huff, who initially said that teachers were leaving the district because their spouses had found jobs elsewhere and when that ridiculous statement did not hold up, he began claiming that some of the teachers could not live up to his high standards. That is an interesting statement since many of those who have left were hired since Huff became superintendent.

How Jeff Flowers and the Joplin R-8 Board of Education shield themselves from the people

(The following post originally ran on the August 22, 2013, Inside Joplin website. It came shortly after the Joplin Globe ran an article rubber stamping the hoops that the C. J. Huff Administration and the Joplin R-8 Board of Education make people go through in order to address problems.)

The Joplin Globe uncovered one of the biggest stories going on in Missouri education in its Sunday edition, but apparently never realized the importance of what it found.

In a story buried toward the back end of section A, the Globe proved that the people’s access to school boards all over this area (and it is also true across the state) is extremely limited and often non-existent.

Of course, that evidence came up in what appeared to be a Globe effort to show that the barriers the Joplin R-8 Board of Education and administration place in front of those who want to address the board are not unusual (everyone does it), so there is no problem.

Brent Ghan of the Missouri School Boards Association, which provides help to districts in forming policy, said that is the way things should be done.

That is the problem. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Joplin Globe to do any more stories on this astounding discovery. It is not going to happen. Now that the Globe is satisfied that the R-8 Board of Education is right in the hoops it requires citizens to jump through to talk to the board, it will likely not be mentioned again, or only mentioned in passing.

To review, this is what you have to do to talk to the board:

1. You have to register in advance.

2. You can only talk about items that are already on the agenda and are up for a vote.

3. Even if you meet those criteria, You still have to be approved by the president of the board of education and Superintendent C. J. Huff.

4. If you do manage to get on the agenda, you are limited to three minutes, which can be a daunting chore if you have an opposing point of view to something being pushed by an administrator who just took 20 minutes explaining a subject. And you will be cut off if you reach the three minutes.

Consequently, you do not hear many citizens addressing the board unless they have been invited to talk about something that will impress the audience that catches the meeting on Jet 14 or YouTube.

Does it make for faster, more organized meetings? Certainly. Those with problems and those who have dissenting views from those held by the board and administration could easily throw a monkey wrench in the way of perfect planning.

But contrary to the impression the board gives and one that is pushed by the Missouri School Boards Association, the Joplin R-8 Board of Education is not the board of directors of a Fortune 500 business. Its time belongs to the people.

In the Globe article, Board President Jeff Flowers noted that all of the board members’ phone numbers and e-mail addresses are listed and they are all accessible to the people. This is the same Jeff Flowers who told the district’s principals last spring that they were not to bring any problems to him. If they had problems, Flowers said, the principals were to take them to “that man,” referring to C. J. Huff. Statements were also made following the board’s recent retreat that that it had emerged determined not to get involved in day-to-day problems of parents and just stick to policy making.

It was noted in the Globe story that people with problems should take them through channels. That is the proper approach in most cases, but if you have talked with a teacher, a principal, and C. J. Huff and you are still not satisfied, you should have access to the Board of Education. And what if your problem is with C. J. Huff?

Undeniably, being on a board of education is a thankless job and those who volunteer their time and run for a seat should be commended. That being said, somewhere along the line, in an effort to remove the possibility of board members who meddle in everything and those who are pushing their own agendas, Missouri school boards, most especially the one in Joplin, have created clubs that meet once a month to rubber stamp whatever their administrators put before them.

The story that should have been in Sunday’s Joplin Globe was the start of a movement to take back the people’s agenda, something that should be taking place not only in Joplin, but across this state. The Globe noted that the movement was started by high school students, but what it failed to note, surprisingly, since the reporter interviewed some of the parents who attended last Friday night’s meeting, was the parental involvement.

Of course, if the involvement of parents had been mentioned, the Globe might have had to concede that there truly is a problem in the Joplin R-8 School District, and as we have seen in other recent articles, including the one on the large number of teachers who are leaving the district, the Globe wants to make sure that everyone knows things are running smoothly at 32nd and Duquesne.

Perhaps the Joplin R-8 Board of Education is not the only entity that needs to have its agenda examined.

Mark Rohr: I did not beat my wife

A December 29, 2012, report of a domestic disturbance at former Joplin City Manager Mark Rohr's home appears to be one of the items explored in the nine pages of investigator Tom Loraine's report that not have been revealed to the public.

That call is explored in an article by reporter Debby Woodin posted late last night on the Joplin Globe website:

The domestic disturbance call was made to police at 2:35 p.m. on the Saturday in 2012. The police responded to what an officer described in the report as a “possible physical disturbance.”

One of Rohr’s stepdaughters had called the police, saying Rohr and her mother were arguing and her mother yelled to call 911.

Police reported that Rohr’s wife, Lois, told them that she and Rohr had argued. She is quoted in the report as telling police “It was stupid, we were yelling and I screamed ‘Call 911’ out of anger.” She told the police there was no violence, the report states. Police officers noted that they saw no marks to indicate that she had been hit.

An officer took Rohr aside and spoke with him. Rohr told the officer that one child in the house had hit a younger child, leaving a mark on the younger child’s back. “Mark got onto his stepson, and his wife got mad at Mark. Mark and Lois began verbally arguing,” report reads. It also states that Rohr said he did not hit his wife.

The officers said they then spoke more to Rohr’s wife. She told them “she felt stupid for what she had done due to Mark’s job,” the report reads. “Lois insisted nothing physical happened and no threats were made.”

The officers asked to look at the young son’s back and noted a “small, red mark.” The boy did not seem to be bothered by it, police noted.

“Due to all the statements given it was determined no action was needed to be taken,” noted one of the officers in the report.

The Joplin Globe and the coverage of the Mark Rohr investigation

The firing of Mark Rohr remains the big story on page one of the Joplin Globe on most days, but the Globe seems to be missing the story.

At the top of page one of Thursday's edition, the headline reads "Letter cites advice on firing." The story's lead- "It was special investigator Tom Loraine who advised Joplin officials in the firing of Mark Rohr without cause, a letter written by Loraine shows."

While the headline and lead are accurate, it is once again a case of the newspaper burying the lead and perhaps pushing its own agenda.

The cost of the investigation, which has been the subject of much coverage, comes directly as a result of something serious Tom Loraine discovered about Mark Rohr, something which was more worrisome even than the apparent conflict of interest of City Councilman Mike Woolston or the completely blown out of proportion accusations against Councilman Bill Scearce.

In fact, that is spelled out clearly in reporter Debby Woodin's story:

Loraine, in the Feb. 20 letter, said that as he took depositions in the probe that was to primarily focus on ethical questions regarding Councilmen Bill Scearce and Mike Woolston and an ote from Rohr's desk, "Mr. Rohr's conduct loomed larger than those issues originally outlined concerning Messrs. Scearce and Woolston."

Loraine's contention that Rohr's problems, whatever they were, were far more serious than those alleged against Scearce and Woolston is buried on the page 10A jump, in the eighth paragraph of the story.

That is what is called burying the lead.

The Globe has steered away from whatever it may be that served as a cause for Rohr's firing and instead concentrated on the 10 missing pages and its own "heroic" efforts to make those 10 pages public.

While I, too, think that the pages should be made public and that they will eventually become public, the Globe has spent little time looking into the important revelations that were included in the open session of the report.

Loraine believed the city should dump master developer Wallace-Bajjali. And there is certainly enough in that firm's history, which those read the Turner Report or who have done their own research know, while those who rely on the area's newspaper of record have not heard a thing about it. The firm has been riddled with bankruptcies, been investigated and fined by the SEC, had tor return $1.2 million to investigators, and have been accused in lawsuits of fraud and operating a Ponzi scheme.

Not one word of most of that has ever been in the Joplin Globe.

Woolston's actions were also questionable to say the least. After the Joplin Tornado, public officials should have known better than to get involved in anything involving real estate in the affected area.

Those findings have been almost completely ignored because of the Globe's fixation on Rohr and what appears to be an obvious effort to discredit Tom Loraine.

It also appears to be an obvious effort to affect the outcome of the April 8 election.

The Joplin Globe and those juicy page one rumors

The Joplin Globe spent a considerable amount of space in today's edition exploring whether City Councilwoman Trisha Raney lives in the city limits,

The reason this is a story, the Globe notes, is because of "rumors and Facebook posts."

I am not one of those purists who believe that rumors have no place in the news. Often they play a prime role in the things that happen and therefore, they should be reported and the truth should be discovered.

Debby Woodin, who wrote the page one story, has had a long and solid journalistic career with the Globe. What a shame that the editors are now using her to chase down rumors about Bill Scearce and Trisha Raney.

The story makes it clear that Raney lives in Joplin. The headline does not.

"Council member says she has moved," the headline reads.  If people are not familiar with this story, that headline is certainly not going to make them want to read it. For those who are familiar, it makes it look as if there is still some doubt about where Ms. Raney lives.

The subhead reads, "City Clerk: Council packets delivered to Trisha Raney at Joplin address."

A better use of the time might be doing some research to see where these stories are starting. The rumors, combined with the Globe headline (there are going to be people who will just scan the headlines and say, "Sure, she says she lives in the city" and never bother to read the story) may be enough to make a difference in the April 8 election.

The rumor has already been given credence by the Globe's regular "guest columnist" Anson Burlingame on his blog:

It seems that Trish Raney, very much in my gun sights as a candidate, lived in Joplin when she was last elected. However over the last couple of years she evidently began a relationship and later married a man living in Webb City. Supposedly she now lives in Webb City with her husband but still owns a home in Joplin.

The question of course becomes is she a legal resident of Joplin, which she must be to run for City Council. I make no attempt at a legal judgment on that point. But if someone actually lives “out of town” but still owns property in Joplin, that does not sound like a residence, at least to me. I would think one must actually live in Joplin to qualify as a candidate for city council.

When a writer has someone "very much in my gun sights," (an unfortunate, but telling remark), he had better make absolutely sure he is right. There is a reason, for instance, why I back up what I write with multiple sources and often with supporting documents.

The Globe's role in this election is being carefully scrutinized and it should be. If it wants to explore the Raney story, it needs to find out just who is planting those rumors...and it is time, long past time, that the newspaper cuts any ties to Anson Burlingame. 

Globe fails to run Burlingame's latest attack on council

Whether the editors at the Joplin Globe rejected his blast against the five City Council members or just had not published it yet and he became impatient is not clear, but Anson Burlingame's latest post debuted on his blog and not in the pages of the area's newspaper of record.

Burlingame addressed the issue at the beginning of his post:

Note: This blog was originally submitted for publication as a guest column in the Globe. Lacking such publication in the newspaper I now post it as a blog to reflect my continuing concerns about how Joplin city government is being grossly mismanaged by the Bloc of Five, council members Scearce, Rosenberg, Golden, Raney and Colbert-King.

The rest of the post features Burlingame's strongest commentary to date on the five City Council members who fired City Manager Mark Rohr:

This city is being mismanaged, grievously, by the City Council, meaning members Scearce, Rosenberg, Golden, Raney and Colbert-Kean. They are using their majority power to terminate a great leader and city employee, implication of gross misdeeds by one member of council and all sorts of other underhanded attempts to stall and even thwart the rebuilding effort ongoing in Joplin for almost now 3 years and previously approved by council.

Burlingame offers his remedy for the city's problems:

All five of those members need to be DISMISSED, run out of office, condemned by the public and all other legal forms expression of outrage for their actions. This is not democracy in action as Americans expect it. It is tyranny of the majority, a majority of good ole boys (and girls) that think they can just ride roughshod over a very angry city.

If the Joplin Globe truly vetoed Burlingame's guest column offering, it is a step in the right direction for a newspaper that has taken a hit with its coverage of city and Joplin R-8 issues.

The Globe also had to use considerable space today to counter a rumor that Burlingame helped promote that City Councilwoman Trisha Raney, one of Burlingame's Bloc of Five, is not a city resident. Though the Globe reporting totally put it to rest, I have a feeling the issue is not going to go away.

Burlingame appears to be easily swayed by those who project themselves as strong leaders. He has been wooed by master developer David Wallace (he has written about Wallace guiding him through the process) and he appears to have his views on local education spoon fed to him by C. J. Huff. 

While I would disagree with Burlingame's apparent stamp of approval of Wallace and Huff as strong leaders Rohr, from all appearances was a strong leader, particularly in the days immediately after the Joplin Tornado, but I still have a hard time believing that any group of "good ole boys" as Burlingame and others have characterized the five City Council members would have been naive enough to think that there would not be serious repercussions to firing a man widely viewed as a hero. Whatever was in the pages of the Loraine report that were not revealed to the public was enough in their view to merit his immediate dismissal. If the decision had been based on political considerations, Rohr would still be city manager because it was obvious that Rohr supporters were going to use the firing to attempt to keep council members Trisha Raney and Jack Golden from being re-elected.

When the content of those missing pages is finally revealed, we should find out more about why Tom Loraine's bill went over the $45,000 limit by so much. This has been the part of the story that has bothered me the most. An educated guess would be that once the Rohr information comes to light, whether we agree with it or not, we will have a better understanding of why the report cost so much.

Thoughts on Mark Rohr and corruption on the Joplin City Council

Mark Rohr has been one busy ex-Joplin city manager.

Let's review. In the month since the Joplin City Council fired him by a 5-4 vote he has done the following things:

-He promised to expose corruption on the City Council.

-He called the five council members who fired him liars and damned them all to hell. (He's the one who said they would get their judgment in the next life.)

-He came close to tears (that seems to be a requirement for the people the media have described as heroes of the Joplin Tornado) and shamelessly brought his children into his speech (another thing that those same heroes of the Joplin Tornado seem to like to do).

-He was hired as the new city manager of League City, Texas.

Since Mark Rohr's firing, I have watched the coverage, both online and in print and it has been, for the most part, unabashedly pro-Rohr. In its editorial pages, the Joplin Globe has done everything but tell voters that the two council members who were with the majority and fired Rohr should be voted out of office (and I am sure that editorial is coming).

In their now-independent blogs, former Globe bloggers Anson Burlingame and Geoff Caldwell have referred to the five council members as "The Feral Five," and "The Bloc of Five" with Burlingame insisting that the pages of the Loraine investigation that we have not seen have people describing Rohr as a bully. How he knows this, I have no idea, but that accusation is probably in those pages. Though it does not appear their blogs receive a great deal of traffic, both men are staples on the Globe's editorial page and Burlingame, in particular, has made it clear he intends to influence the outcome of the April elections.

The Globe has painted the five council members as the ones who are responsible for not releasing the entire report, even though the last time I looked there are nine council members, all of whom know what was included in the report...and Mark Rohr knows what is in the report, as well.

The Joplin Tri-State Business Journal also included several pages in its most recent edition that appeared slanted solidly on Rohr's side.

And those media have made Rohr's characterization of the five who fired him as being a part of a good old boy network that is intent on stopping progress from coming to Joplin, sound like a fact, instead of what is, a talking point planted by Rohr to influence coverage from people who were already inclined to be on his side.

Some questions we should consider:

-Where is the corruption that Mark Rohr promised to reveal? It was a great sound bite, but he has not produced any evidence that there is widespread corruption on the Joplin City Council. An allegedly stolen sticky note is not corruption, its elementary school name calling. Unless, of course, Rohr's corruption allegations are centered around his (successful) attempts to woo Globe Editor Carol Stark into fighting his battles with Councilman Bill Scearce.

-Why are the five council members being described as part of a good-old-boy network, when the most secretive group involved in the April city election, the Joplin Progress Committee, has received contributions from many of the major power players in the city- and none of their contributions are going to anyone who voted to fire Mark Rohr. Apparently, they don't make good old boys the way they used to.

-Why is the media acting like Wallace-Bajjali has disproven the accusations in the Loraine report? The last time I looked, all they did was provide their own version of the facts and did not disprove anything.

-Why is the media ignoring the bankruptcies, fraud accusations, and securities violations, as well as numerous lawsuits involving Wallace-Bajjali. As far as I can recall, it has never been brought up in any of the local media except for a paragraph in the Globe, which quoted Mark Rohr as saying none of it amounted to anything.

Some final thoughts

If the Joplin Globe is successful in its legal efforts to force the city to release the complete report, this is what I expect will occur:

-The report is not going to be what the Globe, Anson Burlingame, or any of the other Rohr supporters would expect. The council members who voted to fire Mark Rohr were not taken by surprise by the reaction. Rohr's influence over the Joplin Globe is well known. Two council members, Trisha Raney and Jack Golden, voted to fire Rohr, knowing full well that it could cost them their council seats. That is not the way good old boys usually operate.

-Bullying may have been a factor in Rohr's dismissal, but it was not the deciding factor. I would say there were things that occurred that the five council members saw as Rohr abusing his office. We probably will wonder why the other four did not join them in their vote. The allegations could have prevented Rohr from landing the League City position and could have landed the city in a lawsuit. When Rohr left Piqua, Ohio, he successfully sued someone who accused him of wrongdoing. I reported the following in the June 3, 2007, Turner Report:

The Family Abuse Shelter of Miami County, Ohio, is $3,000 richer, thanks to a settlement of a libel suit brought by Joplin City Manager Mark Rohr against a Piqua, Ohio, businessman who Rohr says defamed him while Rohr was Piqua's city manager.

According to an article in the March 29 Dayton Daily News, Rohr had initially won his lawsuit against Gustin, but the jury voted not to award him any money. A retrial was ordered, but will not be held thanks to the settlement.

Rohr sued Charles "Mo" Gustin after Gustin claimed police cruisers had been to Rohr's house three or four times to check out domestic abuse complaints;

Rohr said his lawyer, Grant Kerber of Troy, suggested the donation. Rohr liked the idea.

"My sole objective was to send a message that you can't go around saying untrue things about someone without repercussions." Rohr said.

Rohr said he thinks he made his point.

C. J. Huff in his own words- From tornado to bond issue, obsessed with his image

E-mails sent from Joplin R-8 Superintendent C. J. Huff to his staff in the days following the May 22, 2011, Joplin Tornado through the passage of the bond issue in April of the following year show an obsession with image and control of the message, whether it be about the tornado, the bond issue, travel expenditures, or a lawsuit filed by an Atlanta company against the school district.

The e-mails also raise questions once again about the need for the destruction of the original East Middle School building and blame design changes made solely for appearance as a reason for increasing costs for the new East.

The concern for appearances is also spelled out by two e-mails sent by officials other than Huff that begin this post. The first, from his former Assistant Superintendent Angie Besendorfer five weeks before the tornado, lets faculty know that even though students would not have to make up three snow days, the faculty would be required to attend three days of professional development so the taxpayers could get their money's worth. In the final paragraph of the e-mail, Besendorfer is clearly excited by the idea that the media would provide heavy coverage since Joplin was the only school district that was having its teachers make up the days.

The second e-mail, from Traci House five days after the tornado follows up on the warning C. J. Huff sent by a recorded message to teachers three days earlier- if you talk to the media, you are guilty of insubordination and you will be fired.

Turner Report promise- No lawsuits, no Sunshine Law requests, why not give me the Mark Rohr report?

As you can hear on the accompanying video, the Joplin Globe and KSN are pushing for the release of the complete Tom Loraine investigation that led the Joplin City Council to fire City Manager Mark Rohr. The Globe is suing, KSN is filing a Sunshine Law request (I am sure KOAM is doing something, too.) The Turner Report is joining the game, but I am taking a different approach. No threats, no public posturing (and no chance of success), I want to encourage anyone who is filled with public spirit, has the information, and wants it to get out, send it to me. You can send it to my e-mail, send it to me by Facebook, or slip it under the windshield wipers of my car. If you want to send an e-mail with some of the highlights of the 10 missing pages, feel free to do so.

Joplin Globe Sunday edition to examine investigation that cost Mark Rohr his job

The area's newspaper of record is at it again.

Newspaper racks around the city are already advertising the top story in the Sunday Joplin Globe. The topic will be the investigation Osage Beach attorney Tom Loraine did into ethics questions concerning Joplin City Council members William Scearce and Mike Woolston.

As those who haven't been out of the area the last several days know, the report morphed into an investigation of City Manager Mark Rohr and led to his firing by a 5-4 vote.

The Globe will turns its unbiased eyes on the Loraine report Sunday in a report titled "Flawed Investigation."

Am I the only one who thinks the Globe's editor may have selected the headline before her reporters ever started the story?

It's not the City Council that is out of step; it is the Joplin Globe

The question that is asked in the editorial in today's Joplin Globe is an excellent one.

How did (Mark) Rohr go from hero to goat in so short a time?

The Globe Editorial Board says the City Council must provide the information on why it voted 5-4 earlier this week to fire Rohr. "Without an explanation, clouds of suspicion, doubt and mistrust will haunt this council and paralyze it for some time to come, regardless of who is elected in April."

The Globe, which has stood steadfastly in Mark Rohr's corner, ends the editorial by saying, "City leadership and the community cannot move forward unless they are in step, and right now, it is the council that is out of step, not the community."

What the Joplin Globe hasn't told you about Wallace-Bajjali, Part One

With the emergence this week of the city of Joplin's master developer, the Sugar Land, Texas, firm Wallace-Bajjali as a key player in the ethics problems surrounding Joplin City Councilman Mike Woolston and former City Manager Mark Rohr, I thought it was an opportune time to look back at some of what the Joplin Globe not only neglected to tell its readers, but most likely never ever bothered to investigate.

More and more, it is looking like the Joplin Globe has relied entirely on Mark Rohr for its information on Wallace-Bajjali.

The Turner Report has been looking into Wallace-Bajjali for the past couple of years and on July 9, 2013, I posted the following:

(Note: This is a slightly reworked version of a Turner Report post from November 26, 2012.)

The next three paragraphs are the extent of the Joplin Globe's investigation into the background of a company that eventually will most likely spend more than $1 billion in its large-scale plan to develop the tornado-damaged portion of Joplin.

Wallace Bajjali has been involved in two projects that hit difficulty. Rohr said the firm disclosed details of those problems in its Joplin proposal, and that inquiries by city officials verified the firm’s admissions. Those incidents involve a bankruptcy taken by some its partners in the Amarillo project, and fines paid to the Securities and Exchange Commission for investment fraud committed by two partners in a radio acquisition deal. - March 27, 2012, Joplin Globe

Two previous Wallace Bajjali projects hit snags because of problems involving partners. In one, work was delayed when a partner went bankrupt. In the other, a partner was found to have violated Securities and Exchange Commission rules in a business radio investment, which resulted in Wallace Bajjali paying a fine.

City Manager Mark Rohr previously said the firm’s principals voluntarily disclosed those issues, and a background investigation substantiated the firm’s disclosure. Rohr said he was satisfied that there was no wrongdoing on the part of Wallace Bajjali in those cases.July 2, 2012, Joplin Globe

That's it. The extent of the Joplin Globe's examination of the background of the Wallace Bajjali firm that has been entrusted to handle $794 million in development of the area struck by the May 22, 2011, is printed above.



And though everything that is written in those paragraphs may well be accurate, it certainly would be an excellent idea for the area's newspaper of record to examine Wallace Bajjali's problems with its developments in Waco and Amarillo, Texas.

It did not take me long to come up with this for the March 31, 2012, Turner Report.

As of Friday, David Wallace is free and clear as far as the Securities and Exchange Commission is concerned.

That was the day Wallace, CEO of Wallace Bajjali, the company expected to be hired as master developer for the city of Joplin's tornado recovery efforts Monday by the City Council, made his last payment covering his fine for fraud.

It was Wallace's fourth payment of $15,006.72, covering his $60,000 fine plus interest. His partner, Costa Bajjali, also made his final payment for that amount Friday, according to U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas documents.

Both men entered into agreements May 24, 2011, to pay the fines, though neither admitted to any wrongdoing.

Joplin city officials say they are fully aware of the SEC fines and have corroborated Wallace's claim that others were at fault.

In its complaint, which was filed May 20, 2011, the SEC alleged that between November 2006 and December 2008, Wallace and Bajjali "offered and sold securities in two real estate funds they controlled in Houston, Texas, called the Wallace Bajjali Investment Fund II, L. P. and the Laffer Frishberg Wallace Economic Opportunity Fund, L. P. In written disclosures relating to the securities offerings, Wallace and Bajjali represented to investors that they would limit the Funds' investment in any one business or project to certain percentages of the money the Funds raised- no more than 33 percent for the Wallace-Bajjali Fund and no more than 20 percent for the Opportunity Fund. Contrary to their written representation, Wallace and Bajjali far exceeded these limits by heavily investing the Funds' money in Business Radio Networks, L.P, doing business as BizRadio, a struggling media company. As a result, they subjected the Funds' investors to substantially greater investment risk than the Funds' written materials disclosed."

The statement of facts filed by SEC says that by May 2007 the Wallace-Bajjali Fund had received more than $16 million and had invested more than $6.5 million in BizRadio. The ratio was even higher with the Opportunity Fund, where $7 million was raised and $4 million went to BizRadio, far more than the 20 percent limit.

Court documents indicate Wallace and Bajjali entered into an agreement with a company called Investment Adviser in Houston to handle the securities funds. It would appear that the two are casting the blame on that company for violating SEC regulations.

Later that day, I followed up with information from the Amarillo Globe-News:

Earlier today, the Turner Report noted that David Wallace, CEO of Wallace Bajjali, the Texas firm recommended by the city of Joplin's Citizens Advisory Recovery Team to become the city's master developer in its tornado recovery, had made his final payment of a $60,000 fine for an SEC fraud violation.

Wallace and his partner, Costa Bazzali, neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing, but their deal also includes paying back approximately $1.2 million to investors.

From the Amarillo Globe-News:

The settlement approved Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Nancy F. Atlas ends claims that receiver Thomas L. Taylor asserted against Wallace Bajjali Development Partners entities in relation to an SEC investigation of Albert Fase Kaleta, Kaleta Capital Management, Daniel Frishberg Financial Services and BusinessRadio Network, Taylor said.

The settlement sets Dec. 31 as the final deadline for three Wallace Bajjali real estate investment limited partnerships to repay $879,176 in loans they got from Kaleta Capital Management, plus interest.

Under the agreement, Wallace Bajjali Development Partners also said it will pay an additional $350,000 to $400,000, with interest, from the firm’s private earnings from an Amarillo downtown revitalization project.

The SEC sued Kaleta, Frishberg and their businesses in 2009. The SEC appointed Taylor to trace money investors sank into Kaleta and Frishberg’s network of affiliated companies that allegedly commingled and misappropriated investors’ money, according to court documents in the ongoing SEC case and a related bankruptcy case.

Much of the investment capital allegedly misdirected by Kaleta and Frishberg went into the radio network, dubbed BizRadio, which “broadcast programming designed to attract clients” to a Frishberg financial services company and a Frishberg and Kaleta investment advisory business, according to a Feb. 11 status report in the bankruptcy case.

The SEC investigation extended to David Wallace and partner Costa Bajjali, who in May agreed to each pay about $60,000 in fines for exposing investors in struggling BizRadio to excessive risk, a situation Wallace blamed on the media company.

It should be noted that the Waco bankruptcy mentioned in my July 6 post was not mentioned in the earlier Joplin Globe coverage.

Investigator's report rips Joplin Globe's investigation into Councilman Scearce

Joplin Globe Editor Carol Stark's efforts to help City Manager Mark Rohr came in for criticism in the investigative report issued Tuesday night by Osage Beach attorney Tom Loraine.

Rohr reportedly went to Mrs. Stark with information about an FBI investigation into Councilman Bill Scearce involving former tenants of his who were involved in a gambling operation. Rohr's discussions with Mrs. Stark took place after a failed attempt to fire Rohr last summer.

Tabbing Scearce as the ringleader of those who wanted to get rid of him, Rohr gave Mrs. Stark the information and she dutifully had reporters write about the situation as if it were the second coming of Watergate.

Why that story was important and how she came to plaster it on the Globe's front pages for several days is not included in the report...because Mrs. Stark refused to allow Loraine to interview her.

"The editor of the Joplin Globe has refused to make a statement concerning knowledge she purportedly had about Mr. Scearce acting with any gambling activities."

She was not the only one who would not cooperate with Loraine, according to the report.

"Similarly, people that had inside information about the FBI questioning of Mr. Scearce, to wit: Police Chief Lane Roberts and former City Joplin Policeman James Altic, who is now chief of City of Seneca, have refused to give any details of an alleged FBI report that led to an indictment and conviction f Joplin "bookmaker" Lovett.

"When offered to reveal facts that would support wrongdoing by Mr. Scearce, both Lane Roberts and James Altic refused. Roberts allegedly swore secrecy required by the FBI. Any continuing investigation against Councilman Scearce was clearly disavowed by the General Counsel of FBI K. C. division.

"When I asked Mr. Scearce to request the original 302 report of his questioning about Mr. Lovett, Scearce agreed to request any record. He has done so in writing through Mr. Genisio (his lawyer) inquiring to the FBI.

"After consulting with the FBI General Counsel, I find no credibility in a theory of a continuing investigation of Mr. Scearce. If the Council of Joplin wishes to force Lane Roberts to testify or face discharge (note: this was before Roberts' recent retirement announcement), I will pursue this matter. In light of the statement of FBI General Counsel and the passage of time without indictment, I believe Bill Scearce to be innocent of participating in gambling activities with Mr. Lovett.:

At that point, Loraine took a shot at the Globe coverage:

"I also do not find any ethical violations have occurred in subsequent newspaper developments on this 'non-story.' "

Loraine said that if these kinds of accusations against Scearce continue, it could "invite a defamation lawsuit. I can find no evidence that Mr. Scearce has committed crime or an ethical violation of his official duties as a city member.

"When the 302 FBI report arrives, I believe there will be no continuing investigations of Mr. Scearce."

Things I'm Thinking About, January 19

Some things that have crossed my mind:

Score One for the Joplin Globe- Today's Joplin Globe features a page one story about a feud between the Wallace-Bajjali firm that is serving as Joplin's master developer for the tornado-stricken area of the city and the owners of the El Paso Diablos, the minor league baseball team that appears to be headed here. The article, written by veteran reporters Andy Ostmeyer and Debby Woodin, is comprehensive and shows some real reporting, something that has been in short supply at the newspaper of record as of late.

It also features a mention of one of the bankruptcies in which Wallace-Bajjali has been involved, something that has not ever been mentioned in the Globe to this point.

I have contended for the past few years that the Globe has excellent veteran reporters, including such people as Ostmeyer, Woodin, Susan Redden, and Wally Kennedy, who have been pushed to the side while investigative reporting has been neglected and the newspaper has been dominated by fluffy feature stories, snarky "entertainment" reporters and columnists whose sole purpose seems to be to prove how much more sophisticated their tastes are than the tastes of their readers.

I seriously doubt that today's report marks a turnaround for the Globe, but I would certainly like to see that happen. I am sure there are some who will read this and not believe that I am sincere about that comment, but it is crucial that we have as many media sources as possible striving to shine a light on things that affect our community.

On The Other Hand, Where is the Coverage of This?-  Just because something is not illegal, does not mean it is not newsworthy and one such occurrence, mentioned only in the Turner Report up to now was the infamous slumber party at the Joplin R-8 Administration Building the night before filing began for three seats on the Joplin R-8 Board of Education.

Using a key provided only because of his status as an incumbent, Board President Jeff Flowers, along with fellow incumbent Randy Steele, and two newcomers Shawn McGrew and Linda Banwart, were invited in to wait out the evening and thus gain the top four spots on the ballot.. Was it illegal? It does not appear so. Was it ethical? Not a chance. If Flowers, Steele, and the other two wanted to wait the opening of the filing period indoors, in comfort, then they should have had it advertised beforehand that the opportunity was there for anyone who intended to file. The only reason these people were there was because of access afforded them either by their position or because they had been anointed as "suitable replacements" for Phil Willcoxon, who chose not to seek re-election.

If you consider this to be a minor point, and there are some who do, consider this. During the past week, one board member whose seat is not up for election this year, has been "educating" teachers at one elementary school (one that I know of) on who they should vote for in April. "Any of the first four candidates on the ballot are all right," the board member has said. This is a board member who appeared with Jeff Flowers at a meeting of principals last year and nodded approvingly as Flowers told principals not to bring their complaints to the school board, but only to C. J. Huff and if Huff was not available, Angie Besendorfer.

Apparently, this board member wants his fellow board members to join him and Flowers in keeping the principals and teachers (and judging from the lawsuits I wrote about yesterday, the support personnel) from creating an uprising on the plantation.

The ethics of this school board election should be a major concern for the media- so far, not one word has been written in the Globe, not one word has been uttered on our local television and radio stations.

Things I'm Thinking About, January 16

Some of the things I have been thinking about:

TV Leads the Way over Joplin Globe- As those who have followed this blog over the years are well aware, I occasionally received smartaleck comments from people who absolutely hate me, but can't seem to live their lives without reading what I write. Today, I received one of those comments. The reader wanted to know if I planned to "take credit" for the Joplin Globe finally writing about the lawsuit filed by former Royal Heights Principal Larry Masters against Joplin R-8 Assistant Superintendent Angie Besendorfer.

The answer to that question is no. The Joplin Globe did not write about the lawsuit until it our local television stations not only featured it, but led their newscasts with the story. After that, it appeared in the Globe. I am certain that if our local TV reporters had not broadcast the story, we would still be waiting to see it in the Globe.

The philosophy at the newspaper of record is simple- if it runs in the Turner Report, it is not news. If it runs in the Turner Report and then it's on TV, something has to be written about it.

A case in point- The lead story in the Wednesday Joplin Globe, right at the top of page one, was the information that Joplin lawyer Daniel Whitworth had received a letter from the U. S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri telling him he is the target of a grand jury probe. Not only did the Joplin Globe wait until the TV stations ran with the story, but the Globe story ran a full six days after it was featured in the Turner Report.

The Globe's upper hierarchy seems to be under the mistaken impression that they can ignore the news because it's not news until they say it is.

That philosophy is getting to be more and more embarrassing for the Globe. The largest news-gathering staff in Joplin is being beaten consistently on stories by the local television stations and far more times than it should be by the Turner Report.

Is a Medical School for Joplin on the Horizon?- I am hearing that talks are heating up with the Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences (KCUMB) on a medical school for Joplin. Reportedly, some heavy-hitters in the Joplin and Neosho areas, people who are known for putting big money into political campaigns have raised about half of the money that will be needed. Reportedly, if this happens, it will not be located at the location of the current Joplin Public Library as had been speculated, but on the controversial prairie land that had been discussed earlier. 

Doesn't Angie Besendorfer have a contract?  Questions remain about the impending departure of Joplin R-8 Assistant Superintendent. Didn't she sign a contract to work for the school district? Does her pay end at the moment she leaves or is she being paid through the end of her contract? It's not that I am complaining that she is leaving, far from it, but it would be highly unlikely that a teacher would be let out of his or her contract to go to a better job. In fact, any effort to do so would probably be met with threats of having the teacher's license revoked.

Things I'm Thinking About, January 14

Here a few of the things I'm thinking about-

Where is the Joplin Globe?- The  Turner Report broke the story Monday morning that former Royal Heights Principal Larry Masters had filed a lawsuit against Joplin R-8 Assistant Superintendent Angie Besendorfer, claiming that her lies cost him his job. Since that time, all four Joplin area television stations have covered the story and I received a call from KZRG a few minutes ago seeking some information. So far, the lawsuit has not been mentioned in the Joplin Globe, as far as I can determine. It is not an exaggeration to say that most people with any knowledge of the situation have known for the past several months that my stories about the Joplin School District have been accurate. Over the next several weeks, with this lawsuit and others that I am sure will follow, as well as wide-ranging state and federal investigations into the operations of the school, it is going to be almost impossible for the Joplin Globe to pretend that nothing is wrong in C. J. Huff's kingdom. Of course, the Globe could do what it did when Bruce Speck was in charge at Missouri Southern State University when it wrote nothing critical about him for years, then the minute he was gone offered an editorial saying that we must never let anything like the Speck Administration ever happen again.

Where Does the Business Community Stand? One of the generally agreed upon evaluations of this year's Joplin City Council and Joplin R-8 School Board races is that the business community will support the status quo. That is not what I am hearing and the filing of the Joplin Progress Committee's first quarterly report with the Missouri Ethics Commission Saturday backs up that view. While there are a few prominent business names on the list, many of those who agree with the philosophy espoused on the website that city council and school board members should not have anything to do with day-to-day operations, appear to be CEOs of various hospitals or publicly traded companies and while these people have every right to play a role in Joplin politics, their opinions are not necessarily indicative of how the business community feels. I am still hearing it is wide open and there is serious concern about the operation of both the city and the school.

More Mike Shannon- As a St. Louis Cardinals fan for more than a half-century, no news could make me happier than to hear that Mike Shannon, a Cardinal broadcaster for the past 42 years and the voice of the Cardinals since the death of Jack Buck (the best baseball announcer ever as far as I am concerned0 in 2002, has signed a multi-year contract to continue, though he will be calling only a few road games this year. When Shannon is gone, TV announcers Al Hrabosky and/or Rick Horton will work with John Rooney, while another Cardinal great and teammate of Shannon's in the '60s, Tim McCarver, will work in the Fox Sports Midwest booth. Pitchers and catchers report next month.

The big money behind the Joplin Progress Committee

The Joplin Progress Committee filed its quarterly report with the Missouri Ethics Commission today and has given us our first look at a group that plans to put its stamp on the April election with the idea of keeping the city of Joplin and the Joplin R-8 School District firmly in the hands of City Manager Mark Rohr and Superintendent C. J. Huff.

At a glance-

-The committee raised $11,000 by the end of 2013.

-A total of $4,250 came from Webb City and Carl Junction addresses (contributors are listed below)

-The committee's biggest expenditure was for advertising in the Joplin Globe.

These are the people who, according to a recent Globe story will be meeting secretly to determine which candidates will receive their endorsements, and just as importantly, their financial backing. The group appears to have been formed in response to the growing number of people who are filing to run for school board and city council in an effort to implement change. I wrote the following in the Dec. 19 Turner Report

From its website, Joplin Progress, here is what the group, thinks are the key platform issues:

• regional economic growth and the creation of new jobs through both existing and new businesses to our community
• quality of life improvements for our community
• the efforts of any reputable large-scale developers who express an interest doing projects in our city and bring forth economically viable, self-sustaining projects
• the development of new, younger leaders
• working cooperatively with other cities and schools within the Joplin Region
• student achievement that is on target or exceeds expectations in core academic areas for all grades with continued emphasis upon increasing the high school graduation rate
• graduating civic-minded, high quality citizens who are college and career ready
• the development and ongoing maintenance of a short and long term strategic plans for the City of Joplin and the Joplin School District respectively

As I noted before, it is hard to argue with any of those ideas. They sound wonderful.

Where I run into problems with the Joplin Progress Committee is with its section on "personal values and attitude:

• possess strong integrity and moral values
• be positive, progressive and open minded
• form opinions based on broad-based facts from varied sources
• be practical and pragmatic
• demonstrate good common sense
• be both compassionate and passionate
• be non-partisan with no personal agendas
• demonstrate the ability to focus on policy, not politics or day-to-day management

When a group hides behind closed doors and makes value judgments on candidates and then does its best to elect its chosen candidates, it is doing so perfectly legally. I simply question the definitions that are offered and why we should assume that this elite group of business leaders is doing anything to help the rest of us.

I would guess that someone who "demonstrates good common sense" would be someone who sees eye-to-eye with the committee on every issue. "Non-partisan with no personal agendas" would indicate that if you are getting elected to try to remove people who have been a barrier to good city government or to good education, but who kiss up to to the business community on a regular basis, you are not going to be receiving any of this group's money.

It is the last one that concerns me most of all. When they say "demonstrate the ability to focus on policy, not politics or day-to-day management, they are saying, "we like the status quo and we are willing to spend money to make sure things stay exactly the way they are."

Those contributing to the Joplin Progress Committee:

Clifford Wert, Webb City, $500

Jane Cage, Joplin, $500

Paula Baker, Joplin, Freeman Health, $500

Veri Properties, LLC, Carl Junction, $500

Brad Beecher, Carl Junction, Empire District Electric Company, $500

Sharon Beshore, Joplin, retired, $500

Dr. Lance Beshore, Joplin, Leggett & Platt, $500

Michael Wiggins, Webb City, Granny Shaffer's Restaurant, $500

Sara Newman, Joplin, retired, $500

Karen Platt, Carl Junction, Choice Marketing, $500

Jerrod Hogan, American Engineering, Inc. $500

Bennie Crossland, Joplin, Crossland Construction Company, $500

Fred Osborn, Carl Junction, Mercy Hospital, $500

Nancy Good, Joplin, Waco Title, $500

Troy Hill, Joplin, BKD, LLP, $500

Henry Robertson, Jr., Joplin, retired, $500

Joplin Building Material Company, $500

Randy Moore, Joplin, Eagle-Picher, $500

J. Hipple Investments, Carl Junction, $500

Ronald Gates, Joplin, Empire District Electric Company, $250

Gary Pulsipher, Joplin, Mercy Hospital, $500

T. J. Franz and Associates, Webb City, $500

Scott Brothers, Webb City, The Insurance Center, $250