One reason Mayor Sly James is controversial and has many detractors is he doesn’t always bow and scrape to the City Council.
He’s bull-headed and self-confident and tends to charge ahead like Don Quixote.
If he thinks he’s onto something — like awarding a no-bid, $1 billion contract Burns & McDonnell to build a new airport terminal, he grabs a couple of council members whom he has empowered — Jolie Justus and Mayor Pro Tem Scott Wagner — and off he goes.
On the other hand, his self-confidence and willingness to throw the dice (Remember the $800-million general-obligation bond issue campaign last year?) endear him to an electorate that likes its mayors to be strong, in the style of former mayor and now U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver and former Mayor Kay Barnes.
In addition, he doesn’t kowtow to anyone or any group and doesn’t shrink from using scathing language to call out people and/or companies he believes are trying to sidetrack his good intentions.
I remember another type of mayor — Richard L. Berkley (1979-1991) — one who cowered in his office, afraid to face the media’s “on the record” questions. He always insisted on a dry run off the record to help himself formulate an innocuous on-the-record comment. My predecessor on the City Hall beat once told me, “If I had a nickel for every minute I’ve waited on Berkley to answer some questions, I’d be a rich man.”
Berkley’s standing criticism of anything — be it an unwelcome comment by a fellow council member or a firefighters’ strike — was, “That’s inappropriate.”
When Cleaver succeeded Berkley in 1991, it was like a stifling, heavy paper bag was suddenly lifted from City Hall. To this day, I believe it was Cleaver — for all his faults — who exploded Kansas City’s inferiority complex. He put us on the road to self-respect.
Sly James is no Dick Berkley. He is locked and loaded, and you never know when he’s going to pull the verbal trigger. I trust you recognize, like me, that for that reason alone he is fun to follow and watch.
In mid-December, for example, after a council majority launched a sneak attack that almost undermined the selection of Edgemoor as airport contractor, James called the gambit “an ambush” and said, “You can’t lead people you can’t trust.”
Ouch!
Then, over the weekend, he was at his word-slinging best again, lambasting the people behind a covert, robo-call campaign to discredit Edgemoor as “hogs who have to belly up to the billion-dollar trough.”
He wouldn’t say whom he suspected of initiating the dial-up effort, but the two prime suspects are Burns & McDonnell, which is still on the outside looking in, and AECOM, which the city’s terminal-selection committee ranked second behind Edgemoor. (Recently, Burns and Mac and AECOM teamed up, hoping to jump in and get the job if a deal with Edgemoor fails to materialize.)
**
Despite my appreciation for James’ candor and passionate outbursts, I am not optimistic about the contractor-selection process resulting in a first-class terminal. More than any other escapade of Sly’s that I can think of, this badly flawed initiative has played out in a way that could leave us with a difficult and painful construction process and a mundane and problem-plagued facility.
Because the city (Sly & Co.) decided to put the cart before the horse — i.e., forgoing the conventional design-first, take-bids-later process — we are entirely betting on the come in regard to what this new terminal will look like.
We are in a situation where the contractors, labor unions and other special interests are calling the shots. Guns firmly placed at our temples, we the public are marching down the aisle with Edgemoor. There was no engagement party, and there is no ring symbolizing commitment — a design we can examine and comment on.
Worse, it looks like there’s no graceful way to exit this union; the suitor waiting in the wings is uglier and greedier than the one we’ve got on our arm.
All in all, I tell ya’, this wild ride could result in a homely terminal that may or may not be functional. For me — and I hope for you — it takes a lot more than a fancy drawing of a two-story fountain to get excited about a new terminal. To me, it just looks like a flimsy veil.
Edgemoor rendering
When someone puts a gun at your temple, you’re not walking down the aisle with them – you’re walking down the aisle in front of them. Sadly, with the insane process employed, the city provided the firearm!
Jim,
You are 100% correct! Design bids should have been the first step. From there, many other details would be ironed out. Then you build it! If an honest process flows, and unions are used, I don’t care who builds it. But the Mayor and City Council would have nothing to whine about! And the citizens could have some trust woven into the new KCI!
I have forgotten exactly how the processe worked on the Sprint Arena, but I vaguely remember that we were looking at at least 3 design teams. I think one was HOK teaming up with other local design professionals and Frank Gehry was one of the others.
At least with that process, the public got to react to some visual ideas of what we were looking and we had a great assurance that we were getting a nice piece of architecture. I wish Frank Gehry would have gotten the Sprint Center though.
Too bad this project’s design process was not working that way. We need a great building.
Frank Gehry was not happy with the results here in KC. Here is a blog from that era talking about it.
http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?t=3899&start=160
That’s very interesting, Bill…Gehry’s comments — “I’m very upset about what these guys (his rivals) are doing…I’ve never in my career had a competitive team trying to besmirch us” — smacks of the friction between Edgemoor and AECOM. And, as you have suggested, it would be great if we could have gotten a world-class architect for the new terminal.
Jim,
Not to say your first inclination or Burns McDonnell/AECOM is out of nowhere, but wouldn’t you suspect it could also be the minority contractors who launched that call campaign? I’ve been reading that they have been a major opponent of Edgemoor’s plan and demanding that over 40 percent of the work on the project goes to MBE-WBE enterprises, as well as contributing a significant amount of money to various union causes. Call me naive but I just think Burns and Mac is too good of a company to risk more egg on their face with negative publicity, if it’s found to be them behind this.
That’s a good point, Patrick…There’s been a lot of dabbling by a lot of entities on this. It’s another symptom of the screwed-up approach.
Just saw that the revised MOA addresses 25/27 of the issues council wanted changed and they could potentially vote on the new MOA as early as today. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out. Looks like the Black Chamber of Commerce is still against the updated plan and is pushing for the bid to be awarded to AECOM/Burns McDonnell.