JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC

By a longshot, Jackson County has seized the “worst-local-government” mantle in the Kansas City region, on both sides of the state line.

In recent months, we’ve seen an extraordinary list of scandals and astounding developments. Consider:

:: The pitiful condition of the Jackson County Detention Center, highlighted by shocking video of an inmate beating a guard for eight minutes and critically injuring him.

:: Former County Executive Mike Sanders pleading guilty to misusing tens of thousands of dollars for his personal gain, including trips to Las Vegas and California wine country.

:: Sheriff Mike Sharp resigning in the wake of an affair with a civilian employee who had sued the department and whom Sharp had apparently attempted to co-opt with financial assistance.

:: County Executive Frank White’s inability to make his house payments and pay his taxes, even with income of at least $250,000 a year from the county and Major League Baseball’s pension fund.

Justifiably, an implosion like that raises the question of term limits. As The Kansas City Star said in an editorial yesterday, “(T)he attitude of entitlement that comes along with unlimited terms is clearly a part of the mud at the courthouse.”

Although White is in his first full term as county executive, Sanders and Sharp were both in their third terms when their wrongdoings began surfacing.

I completely agree with The Star that term limits are necessary and that, without them, that sense of entitlement inevitably sets in. Four of the nine county legislators have served more than two terms. They are Dennis Waits (8th term), Dan Tarwater (6th term), Scott Burnett (5th term) and Greg Grounds (3rd term). All four have overstayed their welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

And who could forget Fred Arbanas, who got his name identity as a tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs and went on to a nice, 42-year retirement job on the Legislature before stepping down in 2014?

**

As I said, I agree with The Star’s call for term limits at the courthouse. At the same time, the specifics of The Star’s demand are unrealistic.

The editorial urges county residents to call their legislators and demand that term limits be effective with the first election following voter approval of such a measure. In other words, if a legislator is finishing his third term this year, the way The Star envisions it, he or she could not seek re-election at the next election cycle.

Naturally, legislators see it differently: They want to be grandfathered in and be able to run for two more terms before bowing out. Under the proposal being discussed at the courthouse, the county executive would also be limited to two four-year terms — again, however, with the ability to run two additional times. The sheriff and county prosecutor would be limited to three terms — three new terms for current officeholders.

What The Star is asking the Legislature to approve is unrealistic because legislators are never — never — going to approve a ballot measure that involves voting themselves out of office.

The only way to get term limits effective immediately is through the initiative-petition process. However, that is a big hurdle, too, because the County Charter makes it markedly more difficult to get a measure on the ballot than the City Charter does.

In KCMO, promoters of initiative petitions need only gather signatures of registered voters amounting to five percent of the number of people who voted in the last mayoral election. Currently, that’s a paltry 1,700 signatures. (Why do you think goofball activist Clay Chastain has been able to sell his snake oil here even though he moved to Virginia about a decade ago?)

The Jackson County Charter also requires five percent of the number of voters in the last county executive race, but the raw number is much higher — about 13,700 — partly because elections are held in November of even-numbered years, not spring of odd-numbered years, when city elections are held.

The county’s significantly higher signature threshold makes a successful term-limit initiative petition unlikely.

**

The Star’s editorial strays a bit off course, also, when it cites Kansas City’s 28-year-old precedent for term limits. It says…

“In 1990, Kansas City voters approved term limits for the city council without a grandfather clause. A clear majority of the council’s 13 members were immediately blocked from seeking office in 1991.”

What the editorial fails to reveal is the City Charter amendment came about via the petition route. After advocates gathered the (relatively low) number of required signatures, voters approved Question 1 about 55 percent to 45 percent.

The City Council would never have approved an election on a proposition that would have put themselves out of office.

In fact, the two longest-serving and most self-serving council members, Charles Hazley and Bobby Hernandez, filed suit in U.S. District Court after the election, alleging that the new provision restricted the choices of voters in predominantly minority districts. Hazley, who died several years ago, was black, and Hernandez, who is still alive, is Hispanic…Not only did they lose their case, but after the term limits took effect, minority and female representation on the council increased.

**

The Star’s editorial urges Kansas Citians to “pick up the phone in the next few weeks” and urge their county legislators to make a term-limit proposal effective immediately.

I don’t care if there are a million calls to the county; it isn’t going to happen. If The Star wants immediate term limits, it ought to start hiring people to collect signatures outside Price Chopper and Brookside Market. Voters would readily approve, but elected officials slurping at the trough will not.