I’ve been writing about the candidate forums and the mayor’s race for a few weeks now, and I think it’s been clear that not all of my writing has been completely objective.
When I was writing in the news columns of The Star, objectivity and balance were paramount. If a paper does not adhere to those principles in the news columns, it loses its credibility.
With retirement and the blog, that constraint is gone. But I still enjoy “covering” the mayor’s race, and I hope that my “reporting” has helped illuminate the candidates and lay out their positions.
But now, with the primary election a week away, it’s time for me to put all my cards on the table…time to tell you why I’m for Mike Burke and why I think he is the best candidate — head and shoulders above the other six.
But first, a little background.
I met Mike in 1985, shortly after he was elected to fill the last two years of an unexpired term on the City Council. At the time, I was a rookie City Hall reporter, and he was a rookie council member. We hit it off. I remember that, early on, during one council meeting, he told me in a council chamber anteroom that he had made a deal on a certain issue with another council member. The deal was that Mike agreed to vote for something that council member wanted in return for the council member voting for whatever it was that Mike wanted.
Now, politicians make deals like that all the time, but they never talk about them to the press. So, I wrote about the deal (Mike offered the information without asking to go off the record) and he immediately got a backlash: Deals! You’re up there making deals!
Suffice it to say, that was the last time he told a reporter about any deal he made.
But, to me, that was a breath of fresh air: He struck me as a politician who didn’t try to hide the politics. That episode endeared him to me and planted seeds of respect that have grown into trees of respect over the years.
When the unexpired term was up in 1987, Mike, who had a wife, Melinda, and young son, John, decided not to seek a full term. I think it about killed him not to run, but he rightly decided that family came first.
But he always stayed involved in city matters and never stopped working for Kansas Citians in one way or another. (More about that in a minute.)
So, more than two years ago, when he began thinking about running for mayor, I told him that if he decided to run, I’d be with him. And here we are, a week before the election.
My role? I’ve contributed the maximum of $3,000 (the maximum is $3,000 in the primary election and an additional $3,000 in the general election), and I’ve been intimately involved in the campaign. I’ve participated in staff meetings, and over the weekend I co-sponsored a coffee at the home of a friend in Oak Meyer Gardens. (Big success, by the way; about 25 people attended.)
There are three main reasons I put Mike at the head of this mayoral field.
Experience
As I’ve said before, I think service on the council is virtually a prerequisite to holding the mayor’s job. The only mayors since 1963 who did not have council experience were Ilus W. Davis (a banker who held the office from 1963 to 1971); Charles B. Wheeler (who succeeded Davis after serving on the old Jackson County administrative court); and Mark Funkhouser (!!!).
(As most of you know, Wheeler is a candidate again this year.)
Just as important as his council service, however, Mike has held leadership positions on every major economic development agency in the city, including the Port Authority, the Economic Development Corp. and the Planned Industrial Expansion Authority. In addition, for five years he was chairman of the Public Improvements Advisory Committee, which recommends to the City Council how millions of dollars in sales-tax, capital improvements funds should be spent.
If you want tangible accomplishments, he founded the KC Riverfest celebration at Berkley Riverfront Park, and he headed the committee that got Kansas City named an All America City a few years ago.
Some people see it as a negative that Mike is a development attorney. I see it as a plus. For one thing, Kansas City has been moribund the last four years. A Kansas City Star letter writer named Jim Carney expressed it best last Friday. (And, by the way, while campaigns routinely prompt some letters to the editor, ours did not prompt this one.)
“With the economic uncertainties we face,” Carney wrote, “I’m certainly glad someone who understands the development process and its vital importance to our community’s economy would consider running for the office of mayor. Anyone who thinks being pro-development is a sin needs to reread the article on local unemployment.”
Thanks, Jim.
Temperament
Calm, confident and deliberate. That’s Mike. In that regard, he reminds me of a certain president I’m pretty fond of.
In the forums, Mike doesn’t get rattled, and he doesn’t get combative. He’s not afraid to throw a punch, but he does it in a way that it never comes off as unduly harsh.
At staff meetings, he generally listens quietly to all points of view — sometimes expressed vociferously (sometimes by me) — and nods. He doesn’t wave off anyone’s suggestions or thoughts, and he doesn’t dictate to the group. After everyone has had their say, he sometimes indicates what direction he wants to go, and sometimes he takes it under advisement and decides later. But there’s no knee jerking, no rushing to judgment.
On the council, on the Public Improvements Advisory Committee and on the many other boards on which he has served, Mike has honed his consensus-building skills. The ability to persuade people while keeping the peace is the key to getting things accomplished on the City Council, where the mayor has one of 13 votes and needs to convince at least six people to go along with him on any issue.
Personal qualities
You don’t often hear people say this about politicians. Throughout his public career, Mike has treated people with respect and kindness. Not just the powerful — the influence peddlers, the wealthy, the office holders. No, everyone. He is gracious and always friendly. I’m sure, like all of us, that along the way he’s angered some people with his positions. But I’ve never heard anyone say, “I can’t stand Mike Burke,” or “Mike Burke did me dirty.”
The way Mike treats his fellow human beings is going to inure to his benefit on Election Day.
***
In sum, Kansas City is indeed fortunate to have some good candidates for mayor. Some of the candidates — most notably Deb Hermann and Sly James — could be good mayors. For all the talents that Hermann and James bring to the table, however, each would face a steep learning curve. James has never held public office, and Hermann, while she has been on the council the last eight years, does not have nearly the depth and breadth of Mike’s experience in the public-service arena.
Mike is the only candidate, in my opinion, who could step in and start functioning effectively as mayor on Day One. He’s the candidate best equipped to quickly dissipate the malaise that the Funkhouser administration has injected into City Hall and start bringing people together again.
For me, it’s not a close call. It’s Mike Burke…And I’m quite confident I won’t have to apologize for my endorsement in a couple of years.
Correction: Ilus W. Davis, who served as mayor from 1963 to 1971, did, in fact, serve on the City Council. He was on the council from 1948 to 1955 before stepping out of government for eight years.
Mike Burke is an excellent candidate, but so is Sly James.
And “experience” is a very soft and blurry word, most often confused with tenure and not accomplishment.
The most important quality the next KCMO mayor needs is the moral courage to actually take on the results, or lack thereof, of the status quo and provide the vision, inclusion, leadership, and perseverance to change the current drift of the city.
When Harry Truman was asked what being president was like, he said it was really a simple job.
“You just say yes or no”, said Truman, “mostly no”.
Exactly.
Glad you laid your cards on the table. It’s refreshing to see someone publicly (and civilly) stand behind their friends; Gone Mild‘s Dan Ryan is the only other KC blogger to merit that distinction. You are (in my estimation) in good company, a far cry from KC’s lesser, though more widely “read” blog…
Still…
While jobs are important, there seems to be no way – in light on recent {the last 20 years} history – of accomplishing that short of massive tax give-aways via non-performing TIFs or other special deals. Frankly the city can’t afford that any more. One of the reasons “Kansas City has been moribund the last four years” is exactly because no special deals and very few TIFs were done.
While the Funk – an obvious political tyro- got played pretty good his first four years, he still managed to knock down city spending (especially on foolishness) w/o increasing debt. His handling of both the PD/FDs was a wash, but didn’t both budgets get increased? Funk’s also starting to get a handle on city services and is undoubtedly best positioned to deal with both the (mandated) multi-billion dollar water/sewage upgrade and (possible) E-tax fiasco. The biggest plus? He axed Cauthen. And he is doing what he can to assist a long-dysfunctional school district without promising what he can’t deliver on.
Burke would have to learn how to mayor OJT, with several new council members eager to show their constituents that they aren’t beholden to any mayor. Kansas City would be taking a backward step.
The same is true of both Hermann and James.
The city needs another four years of bringing its finances into line before it starts throwing cash away on spectacular pipe dreams like Power & Light, the West Edge project, or the 63rd & Paseo fiasco.
No one I know is against development but we are against imprudent development. Projects that cost money but fail to materialize..or projects that cost the city millions for what seems like forever. For Mayor I want someone who not only has been in leadership positions citywide, but also who has been in the trenches at a block by block level. I want someone who comes to neighborhood meetings when they’re not on the agenda. Who offers support and help when asked. Who’s willing to say “no” when it’s not popular. Who doesn’t spin the plight of a city with financial difficulties. And who has run a true grass-roots campaign, with funding and “feet on the ground” support from folks who just want their trash picked up on time. Any Truman analogy is far more appropriate to my everyday, extraordinary leader. My candidate is Deb Hermann.
This is the kind of endorsement that’s useful. It’s detailed, informative and positive. I personally think The Star should let each candidate make their case in the same manner as you’ve done here. If nothing else, even if I don’t want to support your candidate, I won’t shudder if he happens to get elected (at least for awhile).
And looking at the responses, you’ve set the tone for a very civil discussion on the candidates. For that alone you should be congratulated.
I gotta tell ya, the article and the comments are great.
I am in way past my pay grade on this stuff, but I learned more about the election and the candidates here than I have in the last 2 months.
Thanks everyone!
This is a great series, Jim. Seems you are starting to get your groove back. Hope you continue this insightful “man in the crowd” series, regardless of the race horse you bet on. It’s just as important after the elections to get the Wizard of Oz perspective of what’s going on behind the curtains when the winner celebrations are over and the dishes need to be washed.
+Where there is no vision, the people perish. Proverbs 29:18
+He that would be a leader must also be a bridge. – Welsh Proverb
+A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. Martin Luther King, Jr.
+A general is just as good or just as bad as the troops under his command make him. General Douglas MacArthur
+We have met the enemy and it is us. Pogo
These upcoming mayoral elections may well be a literal life or death decision made with a #2 pencil in a voting booth. And yet…..Even if we double the projected voter turnout noted by Steve Kraske in Sunday’s column we are still well under 50% of eligible voters in this city…………. So what is the mission of our new elected mayor? Respond to the voters who put the individual in office; the 60% who don’t vote???? Where the hell is the mandate for governance let alone good governance? And BTW in that light what should my own personal expectations for effective governance be.
As Pogo said “We have met the enemy and it is us.” I desperately want my vote to place an individual in office who can manage my city/our city with the strategic vision and fundamental decisions that bring constant improvements to my neighborhood, our city, and this region for support of stability, livelihood, and livability today and for the next generations.
I have come to believe that the majority of citizens of America, our state, our region, and our city are ungovernable in large part due to their irresponsible unwillingness to physically participate in their own governance. MacArthur hit the nail on the head with his comment above — “A general is just as good or just as bad as the troops under his command make him.” That career comment is just a valid for our past, present and future mayors who are placed in command of us, the troops.
Regardless which candidate is the next “new” mayor of Kansas City, he or she will be ineffective, nay impotent, without “good troops under his (her,js) command” ….. i.e. troops as citizens, residents, and workers in this fair city who seek to participate in & contribute to self-actualizing, proactive, continuous improvement of their personal lives & family, neighbors, community service, and work/life balance….every day.
Like probably 90% of the projected 20 % or less of this election’s voters, I have not been that post-election, proactive, participating KC citizen-soldier that my city now needs.
Our mayor and council won’t make our city better. Only we can make it better and then hold all of our elected representatives responsible for good and proper management of our city. No one’s candidate of choice will succeed after the election, be it Burke, Sly, Hermann et al, if we just expect them to stand and deliver in these burdensome times of unfunded expectations and wishful aspirations.
I am truly perplexed, bothered and bewildered, but, regardless, I sure as hell will make my mark with that #2 pencil. It would be nicer to know that we were all making the commitment to participate, serve and protect.
Regards,
Jayson
I spent a little time with the candidate this morning and then went to the E-tax campaign kick-off at Union Station, so I’m just getting to the comments. I’m pleased to have had a role in generating such reflective and substantive comments. Thanks for taking the time to think about and lay out your views.
David, you make a strong case for Deb Hermann. If you’re not already working or volunteering on her campaign, you should be. She impresses me very much, and I’ve told her that if Burke doesn’t make it to the general election and she does, I’ll support her. She’s getting rapped for being too serious, but I like her response: “There’s a whole lot to be serious about. I’m going to stay serious.”
Jim
I appreciate your honesty in declaring who you endorse, even while you try to cover the campaigns fairly. It would have come out anyway since the disclosure shows your Mike’s biggest contributor, after himself and the nearly $150,000 he has loaned his campaign.
Oh, my. I really didn’t know he had loaned his campaign that much. But the documents tell the story.
And, readers, let me introduce you to Jim Bergfalk, an outstanding campaign consultant and a friend for more than 30 years, ever since I was courthouse reporter for The Star and he was working for County Executive George Lehr in the early days of charter government.
Jim is managing Deb Hermann’s campaign and doing a great job.
Thanks for the comment, Jim.
Jim
I’m volunteering with her campaign and enjoying every minute of it. :)
Isn’t it amazing how pleasant the discussion is when pretty much everyone actually posts under their own name? This discussion has been as valuable and informative to me as any 2,000-comment nonsense on these blogs that allow anonymous commenters to ruin the dialogue. Great job to everyone posting on this blog today. Chuck, you need to add your last name. I saw one you wrote the other day that was awesome and you should get credit for your ideas.
I can’t John. I live pretty far East. I could get killed, literally for some of the things I write.
Seriously.
I get along with everybody great and love my neighbors, but the truth could actually hurt me.
(I’m makin chicken noises right now,, Bak!! Bak!! Bleah!!!)
How far East, Chuck? Independence? Columbia? Columbus, Ohio?
Watch out, Altevogt’s on the case. Your cover could be blown!
More chicken noises….