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

It’s been clear for some time now that the quality of Jackson County government has been going downhill.

Two examples:

:: The county executive who preceded the current county executive is headed to federal prison.

:: A legislator who formerly played for the Chiefs, Fred Arbanas, held office for 42 years and had a golf course named after him.

But now, instead of going downhill, I’m beginning to think Jackson County government has just about hit bottom. (I say “just about” because as we’ve seen with President Trump, just when you think he’s hit rock bottom, he shovels out another sub-basement.)

What I’m talking about specifically are the proposed Jackson County Charter amendments on next Tuesday’s election ballot.

In May, the nine-member County Legislature, headed by Scott Burnett (who has been on the Legislature 20 years) voted to put seven proposed Charter amendments before the voters. Despite minimal coverage in The Star, I’ve been aware that some amendments would be on the ballot…but I didn’t realize until today how bad they are.

What opened my eyes was the lead editorial in today’s Kansas City Star. The headline was, “Here’s how to vote to improve Jackson County government.”

Painstakingly, the editorial writer — whoever it was — went through each of the seven proposals and attempted to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the end, The Star recommends a “yes” vote on four of the proposals and a “no” vote on the other three.

Scott Burnett

The problem is the proposals contain so many contradictions, so much self-interest and such a lack of specifics that none of them merits approval. Where The Star recommends “yes” on some and “no” on others, I’m recommending an emphatic NO across the board.

While some of the proposals contain redeeming and positive features — such as term limits for all elected county officials — the proposals as a whole would further bloat an already-out-of-control government and would increase the power of the Legislature at the expense of the county executive.

I’ve got to hand it to the Legislature on timing: They are proposing beefing up their own power at a time when the current county executive, former KC Royals’ second-baseman Frank White appears to be inept and out of his depth.

…But I ask you, which of these would you rather have:

A high-profile county executive whose strengths and shortcomings are on full display most of the time or…nine county legislators with even more power than they currently have and who, largely because of a diminished press, are able to skulk around and operate in relative anonymity?

We’ve had good country executives in the past, including the late George Lehr, the first county executive under Charter government, and Katheryn Shields, and we will have more in the future. The framers of the Charter, which voters approved in 1971 and took effect two years later, had it right when they decided to vest a disproportionate amount of power with the county executive. Similarly, most municipal governments have a “strong-mayor” form of government (Kansas City being an exception) so that accountability is concentrated rather than dispersed.

With these proposed Charter amendments, the legislators are hoping that with a weak county executive in office, voters will opt to flip the balance of power. I say: Don’t fall for it!

The way to proceed is to vote all seven questions down and not approve anything until the Legislature comes back with something better than gobbledygook aimed at increasing its own power.

**

Now, let’s get to some specifics:

Question 1

Among other things, this proposal would take away the county executive’s line-item veto authority, which, in turn, would mean the executive would not be able to veto “pork barrel” projects inserted by individual legislators. It would also raise the salary for legislators by a whopping 43 percent — from $34,881 a year to $49,908. Did I mention that legislators work part time?

Naturally, though, the legislators didn’t see fit to tell voters how much of a raise they’d be getting; the ballot language just says Question 1 will “provide a salary increase for members of the County Legislature.”

The only bone the legislators threw voters in this smelly concoction is a two-term limit on legislative terms.

Maddeningly, though, the term-limit bell would not ring until next Jan. 1, giving current legislators the opportunity to serve eight more years.

Question  2

Among other things, this proposal would restrict the county executive’s ability to hire consultants without legislative approval. As compensation for the shakedown, though, the Legislature would kindly increase the executive’s salary by 9 percent — from $145,350 to $158,848.

(Again, of course, the amount is not spelled out in the ballot language; all it says is Question 2 will “provide a salary increase for the County Executive.”)

Question 3

This proposal would shift oversight of the jail from the county executive to the sheriff…This sounds good on its face, but I remember the days when the jail was run by the sheriff — before 1973 — and it was mostly a debacle.

It also would limit the sheriff to three four-year terms and would raise the sheriff’s salary by 53 percent — from $103,771 to $158,848…I don’t know about you, but that kind of pay increase makes me wonder if Sheriff Darryl Forte has photos of some legislators in compromising situations.

Question 4

This would give the prosecutor control over the COMBAT anti-drug sales tax…which is good because no one except those distributing that money have ever understood where most of it has been going.

The measure would also limit the prosecutor to three four-year terms and raise the prosecutor’s salary from $133,432 to $158,848, or 19 percent.

(If you’re wondering where the magical $158,848 figure came from, that’s what Missouri Appeals Court judges make.)

**

I could go on, but I think you get the drift: While some of these questions contain appealing elements, voters are being asked to consume a tray of turds before getting the main course.

…Waiter, take this shit back!

(NOTE: I strongly suggest that everyone read and study the sample ballot before going to the polls or voting absentee. It’s long and complicated and challenging. You can see the Kansas City sample ballot here.)