Semler resignation

Although we were to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people, only the naive still believe that is true. The resignation of Frances Semler from the Kansas City parks board is just another proof that special interest groups control our representatives, even at local levels (1/23, A-1, “Semler cites mayor’s office in resignation”).

If we want a common, decent citizen with a brain to represent the interests of real people who live here, our wishes have become the exception, not the rule.

Charlie Brents
Greenwood, Mo.

All you people who think you can’t make any difference as an individual, consider Frances Semler. Without a threat, without a tirade, and without a raised fist, she single-handedly sent hundreds of people in search of another place for their conventions.

Talk about empowering a woman. There has hardly been one like this since Joan of Arc.

Note: It would be nice if The Star quit blaming Mrs. Semler and Mayor Funkhouser and put the blame where it belongs.

H.S. Bethards
Pleasant Hill

Comments

[solomon]

NMMNG,

Never said I was against the MM. Never, nowhere and no how. I have said here often that I am not for open borders or illegal immigrants having special status. I have said the current laws have not been effective and that putting them all (illegals) on a bus and sending them home is not a solution, as it is impossible.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

So Sol you make a very good argument about assigment. So are you saying that any organization that does not succumb to government is mikitant? Are you okay with illegal immigration? I only ask because I do not see how if someone IS for securing our borders they would be against the MM.

[solomon]

Engineer,

I do say so, and my posts here over the months say so too. As with so many issues (or non issue to appease GCYL), there can be more than two views.

[Engineer]

solomon
If you say so. But you seemed to be supporting La Raza's position. They were attacking Mrs.Semler and you appeared to be approving the onset. If you shoot one dog in a fight you can claim just to be stopping the fight. But some might think you were helping out the other dog.

[solomon]

Good evening Engineer,

Forgive me for being crude.

Funny though, I've never urged or even voiced support for any minority organization here. The thing that happens is that if a person disagree's with a position then he is assigned to the opposition. My late father was not a Reagan fan, and I remember someone saying to him "I guess you want Carter back?" My dad responded, "Just because I don't like Reagan doesn't mean I like Carter."

[CRD]

I know I've pointed out in this blog that it's not clear that "La Raza" is accurately translated as "the race" as you use it, or that it necessarily has the racist connotation that you insist on reading into it.

http://www.lasculturas.com/aa/aa031200a.htm

[Engineer]

solomon
I was pleased with the mayor's stand when the non-issue first came up. Here at last was a piblic official who would stand up to special interest pressure tactics. I still feel that way although subsequent developments might indicate he is not as firm as it first appeared. And yes, I do think La Raza is a racist organization. What in the world else could you call and organization for set up to support one race who's slogan is "For The Race, Everything, For Outsiders, Nothing". Hard to be more racist than that. You state I am eager, in your own crude wording, to kiss the mayor's backside. However much I may support his stand in this matter I do not have your apparent eagerness to perform the act wholesale on the rears of any minority organization that comes along.

[CRD]

Nope. I said it was relevant to her being appointed. It'd be a foolish political move for Funk to have appointed her if he had known in advance of her membership in such a controversial organization.

[Marctnts]

CRD.

Like I said, her beliefs aren't relevant. What's relevant is how she chose to express her beliefs, by choosing to be a member of a controversial organization. - CRD

"I'll try this one more time. Explain to me why joing the Minutemen (a passive expression of Semler's belief against illegal immigration) has anything to with the scope of her duties on the parks board." - Marctnts

"Never said it did." - CRD

It looks to me like your statement above reflects that you do think her joining the Minutemen was relevant (i.e. had to do with) her serving on the parks board.

[CRD]

"I'll try this one more time. Explain to me why joing the Minutemen (a passive expression of Semler's belief against illegal immigration) has anything to with the scope of her duties on the parks board."

Never said it did.

[GCYL]

“Perhaps you don't, but it was forseeable that the appointment would generate controversy…” – CRD

The only thing foreseeable is many of you enjoy politics as usual, at its worst which includes a baseless cry of intolerance while justify your behavior as it’s not about being right or wrong. You insist on due diligence on a non issue and clearly you’re very keen on manufacturing non issues. Good luck with that CRD.

[GCYL]

“I'll try this one more time.” – Marctn

Honestly, CRD or crd, both, whatever, has an extensive history of not answering on topic, direct questions. Still, repeatedly posting them several times without him responding makes for good entertainment that a lot of people here enjoy. And sometimes the entertainment is priceless:

“CRD
There is torture and there is abuse. What is your definition of torture?” – Engineer

“[raising eyebrow] what's yours?”

“CRD
You are the one accusing people of torture, surely you had in mind what you were accusing them of?”

“[chuckle] Thanks, Lloyd. That was just about as illuminating as mud.” – actual dialogue | Jun 25, 2006 9:20:04 AM

[CRD]

"I doubt it. As long as you care about the city parks and you’re looking out for our best public interest, we don’t give a rat’s backside on the non issue of your personal freedom of membership applications."

Perhaps you don't, but it was forseeable that the appointment would generate controversy, so I still think it would have been politically stupid to nominate her if he'd known of the affiliation ahead of time.

[GCYL]

Posted by: CRD | Jan 24, 2008 4:43:24 PM

Posted by: crd | Jan 24, 2008 3:14:36 PM

Any ideas on the all lower case, then all upper case?

[GCYL]

“Such extremist standards will stop you from expressing any of your personal beliefs too crd."

“I doubt it.” – crd

Expressed like a true hypocrite. Sorry CRD but you don’t get to set a different standard for yourself.

“However, it might make me an unpalatable candidate for a political appointment if I choose to express those beliefs by joining a controversial organization, based on forseeable negative reaction to my appointment.” - CRD

I doubt it. As long as you care about the city parks and you’re looking out for our best public interest, we don’t give a rat’s backside on the non issue of your personal freedom of membership applications. Thanks in large part to us non progressive people, I for see no negative reaction to your political appointment to the city park’s board based entirely on personal expression on organizational memberships.

[Marctnts]

CRD,

I'd like to get a reaction to my newsflash post. While the NRA may not be as "controversial" as the Minutemen, I'm sure that the gun control crowd would have as much of a problem with their beliefs as La Raza has with the Minutemen's.

I'll try this one more time. Explain to me why joing the Minutemen (a passive expression of Semler's belief against illegal immigration) has anything to with the scope of her duties on the parks board. Further, please explain why a foreseeable negative reaction by any part of Funk's constituency because of an unrelated issue should be the sole reason for not making the appointment.

[CRD]

"Such extremist standards will stop you from expressing any of your personal beliefs too crd."

I doubt it. However, it might make me an unpalatable candidate for a political appointment if I choose to express those beliefs by joining a controversial organization, based on forseeable negative reaction to my appointment.

[GCYL]

“It's about whether a person's beliefs (or their passive actions in support of those beliefs, such as joining an organization) have any relevance to her ability to serve on a park's board, whose purpose has nothing to do with the belief you disagree with.

ANTI-ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION = WHAT ABOUT PARKS?” - Marctnts

Ouch, a direct question to crd. crd has a well documented record of not answering on topic and direct questions.

You’ve made valid points Marctnts. It’s quite simple really, it’s not about Semler’s personal freedom of choice, it’s all about minority opinion on what is racially or ethnically intolerant and Semler has been found guilty.

[Marctnts]

Newsflash:

Stan Harris, director of the KCMO Public Works Department, has been found to be a member of the National Rifle Association. His membership was discovered by the Kansas City Star and reported to the public as part of a 27-part expose on the workings of Mayor Funkhowser's administration.

John Doe, president of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, has announced that due to Mr. Harris' membership in the NRA the Brady Campaign has cancelled their annual convention in Kansas City.

When questioned by the star about why he would allow a member of the NRA to serve in his adminsitration, Mayor Funkhowser responded by saying, "I didn't think his membership in the NRA would adversly affect his ability to maintain our streets and bridges."

Sometimes it takes looking at a situation a little differently to see the absurdity of it.

[GCYL]

“Like I said, her beliefs aren't relevant. What's relevant is how she chose to express her beliefs, by choosing to be a member of a controversial organization.” – crd

Wow, it doesn’t matter what you believe unless you express your belief in a fashion I’ve judge as offending. Such extremist standards will stop you from expressing any of your personal beliefs too crd. The extreme intolerance of diversity from progressives has always amazed me.

Once again the expression of beliefs is a non issue as it relates to the city park’s board.

[Marctnts]

CRD,

Incorrect and dishonest on your part. It not about her beliefs, or her expression of those beliefs (by the joining of a particular organization). It's about whether a person's beliefs (or their passive actions in support of those beliefs, such as joining an organization) have any relevance to her ability to serve on a park's board, whose purpose has nothing to do with the belief you disagree with.

ANTI-ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION = WHAT ABOUT PARKS?

[crd]

"Further, even if you interpret the Minutemen's beliefs as racially intolerant, you haven't addressed their relevance to someone serving on the park's board."

Like I said, her beliefs aren't relevant. What's relevant is how she chose to express her beliefs, by choosing to be a member of a controversial organization.

[solomon]

GC,

I don't see my saying that I know the people here on this blog as "demeaning or belittling". If it is i pologize to anyone offended.

[Marctnts]

CRD,

"Oh please. It's not about her "immigration beliefs" -- it's about her association with a group that a significant number of folks, whether rightly or wrongly, see as racially or ethnically intolerant." - CRD

...BECAUSE OF THEIR IMMIGRATION BELIEFS.
You forgot the natural end of your assertion. What, exactly, have people used to intrepret the Minutemen's policies as racially intolerant. The answer is the policy itself, thus, their beliefs on immigration.

Further, even if you interpret the Minutemen's beliefs as racially intolerant, you haven't addressed their relevance to someone serving on the park's board. That, I believe, is the issue of this discussion.

[GCYL]

“Oh please. It's not about her "immigration beliefs" -- it's about her association with a group that a significant number of folks, whether rightly or wrongly, see as racially or ethnically intolerant.” - crd

Oh please indeed. It’s not about whether we’re right or wrong, is all about our personal opinion on what is racially or ethnically intolerant to us. I’m shocked, just shocked at crd’s honesty.

We say our feelings are hurt. The Funkman must pay.

Such a pathetic display of politics at its worst. Good luck with that crd.

[GCYL]

“It doesn't bother me to express a non-popular opinion here.” – solomon

I say good for you, good for this blog and better yet, good for our country.

“I'm not shocked at all, since I am very familiar with who we have on this blog.” – solomon

Even at the price of belittling and demeaning others, good for you on expressing a minority opinion.

“I have addressed the "articulate" positions, as you term them.” – solomon

No you have not. You say you’ve made no opinion upon membership, well, other than expressing displeasure that the Funkman didn’t use due diligence to never appoint the person in the first place because of her membership.

“The consequences her choice to associate have are dependant upon us. Since we are talking about the parks board, if we "the public" had determined that membership in the Minutemen had no affect on her ability to improve the parks system, then there would be no consequence.” - Marctnts

Another well articulated position I’d like to see you answer.

“You say a political appointee to the Park Board is a NON ISSUE, which we can see was not truly the case.” – solomon

You can’t even regurgitate my own posts correctly. I said personal choices in memberships, MM for example, are NON ISSUE for a city park’s board.

[crd]

"However, I would argue that the majority of Funk's constituents (those that voted for him) probably didn't have an issue with the immigration beliefs of someone beautifying their parks."

Oh please. It's not about her "immigration beliefs" -- it's about her association with a group that a significant number of folks, whether rightly or wrongly, see as racially or ethnically intolerant.

[GCYL]

“I was not clear. I was saying my comments have never been about the MM and what they stand for.” - solomon

“The fact remains she never would have been in this position had the Mayor done his homework.” – solomon

But you’re angry over a lack of due diligence on a non issue. Could you be any more vague?

[GCYL]

“It would be nice if the "powers that be" weren't fighting so hard against the promises Funk made, but at the end of day, the public's support of those promises (even if not for Funk himself) cannot waiver if we would like to ever see anything acomplished.” - Marctnts

Yeah, didn’t Funk win as a Democrat? He’s not one of those evil, slimy Independent party types? Right?

“Finally, I don't belive that Funk has managed to bring the black community and the "good ole boys" together any further than the fact that they have a common enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I think my post was rather clear on that.” - Marctnts

Didn’t need to have an Independent party to win get that old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing going. Winning by less than a thousand votes has really, really, angered the politics as usual crowd.

[solomon]

GC,

It doesn't bother me to express a non-popular opinion here. I'm not shocked at all, since I am very familiar with who we have on this blog. I have addressed the "articulate" positions, as you term them. But really whats the use. Engineer says LaRaza is a racist group. BuddyT calls all black community activist race pimp hustlers. NMMNG calls the NAACP and the Negro College Fund hate groups. You say a political appointee to the Park Board is a NON ISSUE, which we can see was not truly the case.

[solomon]

GCYL,

I was not clear. I was saying my comments have never been about the MM and what they stand for.

[GCYL]

“Also as a KC resident and someone who voted for the Mayor I feel I have more at stake than the articulated opinions...” – solomon

Some of those articulated opinions are from KC residents and people who voted for the Mayor so no, you don’t have more at stake. Two, you’ve never addressed the articulated opinions that you disagree with. Fine, just don’t act surprised that you’re still expressing a minority opinion on this non issue.

[GCYL]

“So? It was still quite forseeable that it would have been an issue. /snip/ she was a political appointee and a member of a group that was known to be controversial” - crd

“The consequences her choice to associate have are dependant upon us. Since we are talking about the parks board, if we "the public" had determined that membership in the Minutemen had no affect on her ability to improve the parks system, then there would be no consequence.” - Marctnts

“It has never been about support or not of the MM and what they stand for.” - solomon

I’m sorry solomon but I seem to be reading a different thread. It has ALWAYS been about MM and what they stand for. It has never been about determining what memberships have on abilities to improve the parks system.

[Marctnts]

Solomon,

I never said membership in the KKK would not be an issue, I questioned whether is should be an issue. This might have been a bad example since many of KCMO's parks are in parts of town with a majority of black residents, but I stand behind the reasoning behind it.

You're right, if this wasn't a fight he wanted, it was a dumb move (the point I made). Additionally, as you said, appointees affiliations ARE weighed against constituents beliefs. However, I would argue that the majority of Funk's constituents (those that voted for him) probably didn't have an issue with the immigration beliefs of someone beautifying their parks.

His choice DID NOT affect local government other than the countless hours staff spent talking about this issue. It did affect the convention revenue that "La Raza" would have brought in, but at this point the discussion must digress to the correctness of La Raza's position, the Minutemen's position, and the city's response to coersive tactics. Another place, another time.

Finally, I don't belive that Funk has managed to bring the black community and the "good ole boys" together any further than the fact that they have a common enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I think my post was rather clear on that.

[GCYL]

“My point on this from day one has been about the lack of due diligence on the part of the Mayor.” – solomon

My point on this from day one has been about NON ISSUE. You expect due diligence on a NON ISSUE. You do realize how silly due diligence sounds when talking about a NON ISSUE?

[GCYL]

“So? It was still quite forseeable that it would have been an issue.” – crd

That’s non issue and no, knee jerk reactions to non issues are not quite foreseeable. It wasn’t quite foreseeable to the majority of us that are tired of politics as usual.

“I don't have any problem with her being a member of any group, that's her prerogative, but she was a political appointee and a member of a group that was known to be controversial,” – crd

Again, non issue. The only controversial issue here is those so keen on non issues.

“so if he'd done his diligence in advance, it would have been remiss of him to appoint her.” – crd

It’s telling how politics create such an abstract reality. It’s a city park’s board appointment, C.Y.A.

“That has nothing to do with her freedom to associate -- but the reality is that her choice to associate with that group has real-world consequences.” - crd

Again, it’s telling how politics create such an abstract reality. Tell me how free choice of association has real-world consequences as it relates to a city park’s board appointment. I mean, besides the obvious: it’s a non issue, manufactured and sustained by those keen on non issues. Typical politics at its worst.

[Marctnts]

GCYL,

We get the government we deserve. If we continue to allow the Star and the "good ole boys" to determine the direction we go, we cannot complain about where we end up.

It would be nice if the "powers that be" weren't fighting so hard against the promises Funk made, but at the end of day, the public's support of those promises (even if not for Funk himself) cannot waiver if we would like to ever see anything acomplished.

[solomon]

GCYL,

My point on this from day one has been about the lack of due diligence on the part of the Mayor. It has never been about support or not of the MM and what they stand for. Its never been about whether or not someone likes or dislikes LaRaza, as many of what you call the articulate opinions have dealt with. I do not consider people here projecting virtues on the Mayor for his "steadfastness" articulate opinions, since by his own words and recent actions we see those were false projections.

Also as a KC resident and someone who voted for the Mayor I feel I have more at stake than the articulated opinions of your Engineers and BuddyTs, who have nothing other than a rhetorical dog in this fight.

Marctnts,

You are correct that Frances has every right to associate with whomever she please, but you are dead wrong that even if she were a KKK member it would not be an issue. All across the nation and in democracies around the world there is a litmus test for political appointees, part of which is are a persons affiliations offensive to constituents.

As to your point #3, it has become an issue for the fact that this oversight affected local gov't and convention revenue. The stand he took after the fact was clumsy postering on his part,IMO, and without the substance of convictions people want to think he had.

As far as point #5, if it took a shortsighted and poorly executed appointment by this Mayor to bring the good ole boys and the black community together for once in this city's history then I am glad I voted for the bumbler.

[Marctnts]

CRD,

The consequences her choice to associate have are dependant upon us. Since we are talking about the parks board, if we "the public" had determined that membership in the Minutemen had no affect on her ability to improve the parks system, then there would be no consequence.

It was only when a part of "the public" determined that views imcompatable with their own should not be tolerated did any consequence occur. And remember, her incompatable view had nothing to do with her scope of responsibility. The fight would have been more understandable (bit not necessarily correct) if she was appointed to the "Kansas City Immigration Task Force".

Concerning your point of due diligence, see my point #3 from the previous post. I agree that if he did not pick this to be a fight, he made a dumb move.

But remember, controversy does not always have to be avoided. Shying away from any issue because of controversy is cowardice in nature.

[crd]

"Semler's membership should not have been an issue. I don't care if she was a member of the Klan, since the last time I checked, we all have the right of free association as we feel appropriate."

So? It was still quite forseeable that it would have been an issue. I don't have any problem with her being a member of any group, that's her prerogative, but she was a political appointee and a member of a group that was known to be controversial, so if he'd done his diligence in advance, it would have been remiss of him to appoint her. That has nothing to do with her freedom to associate -- but the reality is that her choice to associate with that group has real-world consequences.

[GCYL]

“A few points since everything is finally settling:” - Posted by: Marctnts | Jan 24, 2008 1:11:13 PM

Outstanding post.

“5. The Star is pissed that Funkhouser won, and so is the majority of the black community and the "good ole boy" network that has ran this city for so long. Admitedly, Funk has made some bonehead moves (wife, car, campaign funds, etc.) that have handed the Star fodder for thier attack, but at the end of the day, it's rather obvious that they have in in for him. His true test will be how many of the promises he made which got him elected he will actually be able to keep.” - Marctnts

Good luck on accomplishing anything while trying to work around the pissed off Star and the “good ole boy” network.

[Marctnts]

A few points since everything is finally settling:

1. Semler's membership should not have been an issue. I don't care if she was a member of the Klan, since the last time I checked, we all have the right of free association as we feel appropriate. It doesn't matter how detestible you think the organization is, she still has the right to belong.

2. It's the park's board people. If you're that concerned about someone's affiliations(that have no basis on the job they are suppossed to be doing), then let's make every appointed position in city government an elected one. That way, no one can complain that their particular views are being insulted.

3. Unless Funk was specifically trying to make a point out of the Semler appointment (which apparently he wasn't), not checking her background more closely was a dumb move. Was it as bad as Sol want's to believe, NO. Was it a simple oversight, MAYBE. Either way, the best thing he had going in the situation was the stand he took behind her after the fact, and it looks like he's lost that too.

4. The SCLC conference is a non-issue. According to the statement made by the convention bureau director, the SCLC conference attendance is typically about 80% local, and they had only requested quotes on 250 rooms, which they had not made any commitment to prior to their decision to pull. A great example of a little PR without any real cost.

5. The Star is pissed that Funkhouser won, and so is the majority of the black community and the "good ole boy" network that has ran this city for so long. Admitedly, Funk has made some bonehead moves (wife, car, campaign funds, etc.) that have handed the Star fodder for thier attack, but at the end of the day, it's rather obvious that they have in in for him. His true test will be how many of the promises he made which got him elected he will actually be able to keep.

[GCYL]

“I take issue that either this blog or the Letter section of the Star are actually respresentative of Kansas City residents and taxpayers.” – solomon

On this issue you’ve always have been in the minority. You’re repeating that the Funkman is a bumbler did/does nothing to counter the articulated opinions that this has always been a non issue.

As you have pointed out, the majority of people that have taken the time to express themselves on this issue have basically laughed at the Star and others so keen on non issues. You don’t like that. I get it. You acknowledge reality but think otherwise. Fine. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a minority opinion. I just feel it’s a great waste of time expressing it on a non issue. That’s the basis of why the majority is annoyed at the Star and various organizations.

[solomon]

I have read it in the Star, it was discussed at a neighborhood meeting I attended (not by the Mayor, he was not in attendance) and on both the Kansas City Year in Review and Ruckus, both on channel 19.

[Rogue]

If Sol's claim that the Mayor said he would have never appointed Mrs. Semler had he know she was a memeber of the Mimutemen is correct, then he has slipped even further in my opinion of him. I used to think he had some courage.

This whole affair illustrates the inmates are indeed running the asylym. Kanas City and the school district will get the leadership they both deserve, and wanted.

[solomon]

GCYL,

I take issue that either this blog or the Letter section of the Star are actually respresentative of Kansas City residents and taxpayers.

Me repeating he's a bumbler and his wife should go home and BuddyT and Engineer kissing his butt over and over does not constitute actual public opinion.

[solomon]

GCYL,

As I stated the other day I supported the Mayors vision and voted for him. Hard to be more open than that, he got my vote. Since then it has been one debacle after another, his wife involved to an unacceptable degree and a lack of diligence on the part of his administration. (be it the not checking of background on Frances, which he has said was a mistake on his part, to the $80,000 from his campaign fund his treasurer, er wife, says they just can't find)

[GCYL]

“The fact is that other tax paying Kansas Citians do.” – solomon

As this blog has pointed out several times, the fact is that a majority of other tax paying Kansas Citians don’t. Feel free to continue with your minority opinion on this issue. It’s a free country unless you’re associated with various organizations or the Star has a hard on for you.

[GCYL]

“The fact remains she never would have been in this position had the Mayor done his homework.” – solomon

The fact remains this opinion is in the minority. She should never have been made into a non issue by the Star and various minority groups.

“It should be noted that recents events have put in question how certain we can be of anything he says publicly.” – solomon

Just like being given a stunning off year election victory because of a repeated promises to bring troops home quickly? You can keep your typical political candidates and I’ll continue to enjoy your efforts to paint the Funkman as someone unfit and not trust worthy because he’s not your typical political candidate.

[solomon]

Affiliations my friend, neither of them had membership in a controversial organization, and believe me, there was a background check. Sorry Buddy, the rules have to be the same for everyone.

[Rogue]

I guess it goes to character. Mrs. Semler did not, has not broken any laws and believes in the rule of law. The fact that some taxpaying citizens "have issues with her" should not affect any appointment made.

When President Bush appointed Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft all of the liberal world went ballistic, but it did not stop him from making the appointments.

If that is the case on the national level it sure as heck should be the case in Kansas City.

[solomon]

Rogue,

The fact that you have no issue with Frances has no bearing on reality. The fact is that other tax paying Kansas Citians do. The mayor and his wife made an appointment that never should have been made. Frances, who in her letter did not appear to be the sweet old grandmother she's been called here, could have been a Nazi, klanmember or due's paying supporter of Al Queda and our bumbling first couple would've never known for lack of checking.

[Rogue]

Why should belonging to an organization that wants to see the law of the land enforced disqualify anyone from public service Sol?

Just because some smarmy little special interest groups (who I might add have their own very special ax to grind) are going to object? Like I said, disgusting.

Who runs Kansas City the Reverend Fuzzy and LaRaza, or the officials elected by its citizens? From the events I have witnessed in the past few months, I would say it is the former. And yes I will say it again, disgusting.

[solomon]

Rogue,

The Star did beat up on her pretty good. The fact remains she never would have been in this position had the Mayor done his homework. By his own admission he would not have appointed her had he known her affiliation with the MM. It should be noted that recents events have put in question how certain we can be of anything he says publicly.

NMMNG,

I've been in Greenwood numerous times, and never considered it "rich", but somehow you managed to bring "blame whitey" into the equation.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Actually Greenwood is in Jackson Co, so while those of us that are not at city center, if we are in county many of the taxation issues affect us although we generally never benefit from it. We are considered "rich" becuase we actually put forth effort to better ourselves rather than sitting around blaming Whitey.

[Rogue]

Solly I do not live in the city either (my kids got an excellent education!), but I watched this paper beat that 73 year old woman like a rented mule for months. Disgusting.

[solomon]

note: Both Charlie and H.S. live in communities outside of Kansas City which are not affected in any way by the park board, the loss of convention income or the shortsightedness and deception the Mayorial couple engaged in. Nice to know where they stand though.