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.

The Joplin Progress Committee and how to buy a school board and city council

Occasionally, I read a comment on one of my posts and have a hard time believing that someone is so blind to what is going on around him.

Last night, after reading the Joplin Globe's page one story by Susan Redden about the Joplin Progress Committee, a collection of business interests that plans to pour big bucks into putting the kind of people it wants into Joplin R-8 Board of Education and Joplin City Council seats, I read a comment that left me shaking my head.

Someone thought it was only fair that these people get involved and have a say in how things are run in Joplin.

Hello?

The people who have formed the Joplin Progress Committee and who indicated to Mrs. Redden that they plan to conduct their meetings, quite legally, out of the public's eye, already have a major say in what is going on in Joplin.

The only reason they found it necessary to form a Joplin Progress Committee is because people are finally making the decision to run against their hand-picked choices for school board and city council.

From their website, Joplin Progress, here is what the group, whomever it consists of, 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

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 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."

My guess is that for the first time we are going to see city council and school board ads in heavy rotation as we approach April as the city's economic heavy hitters flex their muscles  and do their best to maintain the status quo in a community that is desperate for change.