
Before the eruption. From left, Mike Burke, Mark Funkhouser, Deb Hermann, Sly James, Henry Klein and Jim Rowland
Perhaps Mayor Mark Funkhouser had had it with playing the role of punching bag for some of the other mayoral candidates.
Or maybe his dog Maria the Poodle nipped him.
In any event, the man who has shown for four years that he’s very capable of being testy lit into Mike Burke tonight like no candidate has lit into another during the primary campaign.
The trigger point — at a League of Women Voters forum at Central United Methodist Church, 52nd and Oak streets — was a question about “the strong influence of the police and firefighter unions.”
Burke, whom I support and whose campaign gained a significant boost yesterday with the endorsements of three former mayors — Barnes, Berkley and Wheeler — took the opportunity to jab Funkhouser and a City Council majority for the manner in which they approved the folding of the MAST ambulance system into the Fire Department, at the urging of the department and Local 42 of the International Association of Fire Fighters.
A controversial offshoot of that move is that Local 42 has been trying desperately to convince a council majority to retroactively install the former MAST employees in the city’s defined pension plan, at a cost that Acting City Manager Troy Schulte has estimated at $30 million.
So far, the council has stood its ground against the union’s crusade.
Burke told the crowd of 130 to 150 people that he believed the current council’s “most embarrassing moment” occurred in 2009 when a council majority voted to dismantle MAST and roll it into the fire department. The worst part of that episode, Burke said, was that the vote occurred without the benefit of a public hearing on the issue.
Burke pushed the needle in a bit deeper when he proceeded to say that the changeover, which Funkhouser supported, “got you a beautiful ad (a campaign mail piece) from the firefighters.” Before Burke finished the sentence, however, Funkhouser loudly interrupted him, saying, “It’s also not true!”
(He apparently was referring to the fact that the council held a public hearing on the issue the following week before voting, once again, to fold MAST into the fire department.)
After the interjection, Burke took one more shot: “As long as you cave in to them (the firefighters), you’re OK” in the eyes of the union.
(A group called Taxpayers Unlimited, the political arm of the firefighters’ union, has endorsed Funkhouser. Burke has the support of the Citizens Association, which has, at times, found itself taking candidates or positions in opposition to the firefighters’ union.)
After Burke had finished speaking, another candidate took the microphone. Funkhouser, sitting to Burke’s left, frowned, fidgeted and rubbed his jaw.
It was clear that he was not going to let Burke have the last word.
When it was Funkhouser’s turn to answer the next question, regarding transportation, Funkhouser said, “I’m going to use most of my time to respond to the frontal assault from Mr. Burke.”
When they worked for MAST, Funkhouser said, ambulance-system employees were “abused” and taken for granted.
“Finally, they joined Local 42,” he continued, “and, suddenly, they weren’t worth a pension system any more, even if they’d been driving an ambulance for 30 years.”
Burke sat quietly, looking straight ahead.
That was the end of the questions, and the candidates finished up with closing remarks. Neither Burke nor Funkhouser directly pursued the MAST/firefighter issue, but Funkhouser wasn’t through talking about what how he sees himself — as a populist change agent, a leader who is converting City Hall from a place where special interests held sway to a place where the interests of average citizens are paramount.
I will tell you that the most fundamental element of leadership is courage,” Funkhouser said. “The courage to withstand ridicule, the courage to withstand loss of reputation…When you demand change, there’s going to be conflict.”
Minutes later, after the forum had ended, I went up to Funkhouser to make sure that I would quote him correctly.
As he retraced his words about “the courage to withstand ridicule and loss of reputation,” he said, “I’ve witnessed that.”
Minutes later, I approached the forum moderator, Margie Richcreek of the League of Women Voters, and asked her to clarify the question about the firefighters.
As written, on a 3×5-inch card, the question was: “How would you negotiate the strong influence of the police and firefighter unions?”
It seemed clear to me that what the writer meant to say was, “How would you negate the strong influence of the police and firefighter unions?”
And that’s how the candidates interpreted it. And that’s how fights break out.
“…a populist change agent, a leader who is converting City Hall from a place where special interests held sway to a place where the interests of average citizens are paramount.”
I must admit, this is how I see Funk, and if I have a fear of your candidate, Jim, it’s that he will be a voice for those whose interest in KCMO government is how much they can make out of it.
Obviously doesn’t matter, since I have no vote, but that’s the view from this peanut gallery.
He’s playing to his audience, John. He got in, partly, by railing against developers and other interest groups, and he continues to depict himself as the antithesis of the “elite,” a term he used earlier in last night’s forum. At the Central Methodist forum, on the MAST issue, Burke presented him with the opportunity to go from punching bag to puncher, and he jumped right on it.
It was fun to witness, especially with the two men sitting side by side. It might rally a few votes for Funkhouser, but I don’t think it hurt Burke because he’s on the right side of this pension issue. Many major cities, as you know, are trying to figure out how to rein in pension expenses, not how to take on even greater obligation.
Jim
The fact that he got in after Barnes reign on a platform based on opposition to developers should indicate the abuses of the Barnes administration.
Trying to figure out the difference between projects that are worth the investment of public funds and those that simply use public money and/or political influence to line the pockets of a corrupt and greedy establishment can often be very difficult.
The misuse of START bonds and tax waivers in KCK is one very large example, but at the same time they have both have produced tangible results for the community. I guess the question is whether or not the competition for development has created an environment where a certain amount of larceny has to be tolerated to get the projects done.
I completely understand the position of both men and that’s why I’m voting for Deb.
Interesting. Thanks fellas…