Author Archives: bpriddy

Missouri, the Seuss State, and the importance of “no”

Posted on by
Reply

“I call them Thing One and Thing Two…                                                                             Then those things ran about                                                                                               with big bumps, jumps and kicks                                                                                        and with hops and big thumps                                                                                             and all kinds of…tricks.”

Dr. Seuss’s Cat in the Hat gave us two Things and they have become part of our conversation in various ways through the years. The story comes to mind because history has never given Missouri a Governor-Lieutenant Governor combination with the same first names. Until now. Mike 1 and Mike 2.  Governor Mike Parson and Lieutenant Governor Mike Kehoe.

Missouri has had five governors and three lieutenant-governors named John, but the state capitol has never had two Johns at the same time.  We’ve had three Josephs as governor and one Joseph as lieutenant-governor.  But never together.

But on June 1, 2018, Missouri began to enter the Seussical Era. And now we have a couple of cats wearing a couple of new hats. Mike 1 and Mike 2.

As the good doctor wrote in another of his other best-selling ruminations on life:

“Oh, the places you’ll go! There is fun to be done!
There are points to be scored. There are games to be won…
Fame! You’ll be as famous as famous can be,
with the whole wide world watching you win on TV.

Except when they don’t
Because, sometimes they won’t.”

We wish Mike 1 and Mike 2 a service without big bumps, jumps and kicks or tricks.  However:

-0-0-0-

There is another issue beyond the legality of the appointment that piques our interest about the twoship of state government.

Article 4, Section 10. There shall be a lieutenant governor who shall have the same qualifications as the governor and shall be ex officio president of the senate. In committee of the whole he may debate all questions, and shall cast the deciding vote on equal division in the senate and on joint vote of both houses.

The Missouri Constitution carries over language written in 1875.

Today we pick a philosophical fight that suggests the lieutenant governor should always break ties in the senate and on those occasions when there is a joint vote by both the House and the Senate (the provision was written at a time when Missouri’s U. S. Senators were elected by the legislature) with a “no.”

Our argument is certainly open to discussion and we would welcome it in the comment area at the end.

Under our Constitution, the lieutenant governor is both fish and fowl, both legislative and executive in nature, the successor to the chief executive if something befalls the chief executive, and the presiding officer in the upper house of the legislative branch.

To test this idea, let’s suggest a circumstance in which the presiding officer in the upper legislative house breaks a tie with a “yes” vote on a bill.  Before the bill is truly agreed to and finally passed, the chief executive becomes unable to perform the duties of that office, thus elevating the person who broke a tie on a piece of legislation into a position of signing the bill into law.  The situation is at best awkward.  Under certain circumstances, signing the bill could create a conflict of interest because a vote cast to keep an issue alive during the legislative process might conflict with a new governor’s obligation to serve all of the people of Missouri.

So, let’s argue, the tie should always be broken in the negative.  Why?

Because it is the responsibility of those chosen by the people in the legislative districts to represent those constituents in finding agreement on a proposed law affecting all Missourians.  The Executive Branch, which is not chosen to specifically balance the rights of specific constituents, should not take legislators off the hook.

If the legislature, which is entrusted with enacting statutory policy that one should expect to be fair to all, cannot draft a policy that draws majority support, then its failure should not be excused.  And the lieutenant governor should not excuse that failure by voting “yes.”

Please note that we began by referring to this as a philosophical fight. In the real world, of course, there is partisanship and special interest favors to be considered, which is why a lieutenant governor who happens to be of the same party as the majority in the state senate is likely to let the majority party off the hook by turning a failure into a partisan success.

A “yes” vote to break a tie dismisses the value of half of the state’s population.  A “no” vote recognizes the place of both sides in the system of government, and demands that the people’s representatives work harder on an equitable policy for all.

A “yes” vote is politics.  A “no” vote is statesmanship.

The Replacement

Posted on by
1

Governor Parson wants the legislature to pass a law allowing lieutenant governors who ascend to the governorship to appoint a new lite gov.  Sounds simple.  But maybe it isn’t. Then again, maybe it is.

“It needs to be done. I don’t like the state of Missouri being without a lieutenant governor,” he said after being sworn in. The feeling at the capitol is that he’ll call a special legislative session to clear up any doubt that he could make an appointment.  He thinks a lieutenant governor is important in the transition from the Greitens administration to his administration.  He does have a transition committee working with him.

He has not indicated if he’ll summon lawmakers into special session soon or wait until the regular September veto session and have a special session that runs concurrently with it—a more economical move.

Governor Parson did not mention the issue in his speech to the joint legislative session yesterday, which for all intents and purposes had more the flavor of an inaugural address than his remarks after his swearing in ten days ago.

The Missouri Constitution allows the governor to “fill all vacancies in public offices unless otherwise provided by law.”  State law, however, does not allow the appointment of a new lieutenant governor, state senator or representative, sheriff or recorder of deeds in the city of St. Louis. The Constitution also has a provision that, “If any state officer other than the lieutenant governor is acting as governor, his regular elective office shall not be deemed vacant and all duties of that office shall be performed by his chief administrative assistant.”  The provision is a delegation of authority of an elective official to a bureaucrat while the elected official is running the state. It’s not a particularly bad idea. The chief administrative assistant is likely to know the duties and operations of the office and by virtue of the position should be able to go to meetings, attend conferences, and make administrative decisions.

But it’s not a good idea for the lieutenant governor because it would lead to an unelected bureaucrat becoming governor if a vacancy occurs in that office a second time within a four-year term. In all honesty, and with absolutely no offense intended to present company, there probably are bureaucrats who could do the governor’s job and do it well.  But the highest elective office in the state should stay in the hands of somebody of a higher level than a bureaucrat.  Or at least, that’s what some people are likely to think, maybe most people.

And for bureaucrats who read this note, don’t get your feathers ruffled. The author appreciates bureaucrats.  He’d better.  He married one.

Governor Nixon vetoed a proposal a few years ago that would have applied the same standard of bureaucrat-in-charge to the office of lieutenant governor, saying that wouldn’t be appropriate.

Well, then, what should the new law say?  That’s for the professionals to decide.  But there is room for amateur comment.

The limits on filling legislative or certain local offices make sense because those are decisions left to community or district voters to make to begin with.  The lieutenant governorship is or should be in these circumstances a statewide decision.

It would appear, then, the question is whether to give the governor the appointment power or to give the governor the authority to call a special statewide election.

This is where things can get complicated.

Should the process of filling of the vacancy be different if it occurs because a lieutenant governor moves into the governorship versus a vacancy that occurs because a lieutenant governor dies or otherwise vacates the office?

Example: Governor Bates died in 1825. There was no lieutenant governor because Benjamin Reeves had resigned to survey the Santa Fe Trail. The Senate President Pro Tem became acting governor but the lieutenant governor’s office remained vacant.

In what way should consideration of filling the lieutenant governor vacancy alter the present line of succession for the governor’s office?  Now it’s governor, lieutenant governor, Senate Pro Tem, House Speaker. An appointed lieutenant governor would render the current succession provisions irrelevant, wouldn’t it?

What if the governor whose departure created the vacancy was of a different party from the lieutenant governor who rises to the governorship?  If the voters created the difference, should not their wishes be honored in the appointment process?  For instance:  Had Eric Greitens been the Democrat he once was and Mike Parson be the Republican he always has been, should a Governor Parson with appointment authority be required to appoint a Democrat lieutenant governor to maintain the different party governor-lieutenant governor relationship established by the voters?

The key question is whether the system should allow a governor to, in effect, appoint his or her successor or potential successor?

The issue becomes even more acute if the vacancy occurs in a campaign year.  Should a governor give a candidate for the lieutenant governorship a leg up in a primary or general election by appointing that person to that position?  The question holds whether the vacancy occurs before or after the filing window for candidates.

Suppose 2018 was an election year for lieutenant governor and the Greitens resignation had taken place before or during the filing period.  Would it be proper for Governor Parson to look at the list of potential primary candidates from his party and pick someone to fill the vacancy, thus presumably giving that person greater visibility, name identification, and possible fund-raising advantages over others who are interested in the job?

A proposal that briefly floated around in the recent regular legislative session called for senate confirmation of a nominated lieutenant governor.  We’re not sure that makes a lot of sense, especially if the vacancy occurs—as it has now—in May and the legislature is not mandated to be back until September.  Calling a special session just to confirm a new lieutenant governor will quickly draw criticism from those who suggest money is being wasted. And if a governor during a campaign year picks a state representative to fill the vacancy that a state senator wants to file for as a candidate, is confirmation by the senate less likely?  A deadlock on the confirmation process will serve nobody at a time when the obligations of the office need someone to meet them.

Calling a special election will be even more costly and such a proposition is likely to be criticized if it does not include a primary to allow any hopefuls to have their chance, a process that is likely to leave the office vacant for an unacceptable amount of time.

Of course, it’s entirely possible the legislature will not spend a lot of time kicking these and other ideas around and will just pass a bill saying the governor can appoint a lieutenant governor whenever there is a vacancy in that office and let the system play itself out, knowing that some people will have fits no matter what direction the bill debate takes or what form the bill finally has.

Some other miscellaneous observations as long as we’re chatting about this stuff:

The Constitution eliminates any uncertainty about whether somebody who would not be qualified to be governor could be appointed lieutenant governor—a 22-year old political phenom, for instance.  The constitution says the lieutenant governor shall have the same qualifications as the governor—at least thirty years old, a citizen of the United States for at least fifteen years and a resident of the state for at least ten years before the election.

The issue of replacement of the lieutenant governor is something we have been looking at since the Roger Wilson-Joe Maxwell days and as is the case with many things in politics, identifying a problem is far easier than identifying a solution.

But it’s about time the issue was addressed and it’s good to see that it is.

And then there’s this twist: The constitution says no governor can be elected to more than two terms EXCEPT in cases such as that which has befallen Mike Parson.  Section Seventeen says, “No person who has held the office of governor or treasurer, or acted as governor or treasurer, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected to the office of governor or treasurer shall be elected to the office of governor or treasurer more than once.”  So Governor Parson, by taking over for more than half of the Greitens term faces a shorter term limit than governors elected without having filled out someone else’s term.

Why are those two offices singled out? Because they are the offices of greatest power.  The administrator of all of state government and the person who has his or her hands on the state’s money.  And that’s where term limits really should be focused—not on length of service but on limits to power.   Unfortunately, Missouri voters fell a long time ago for the faulty idea that service is more dangerous than power and in doing so gave away their right to continue electing representatives and senators that they trust to write the laws under which all Missourians are supposed to live.

But that’s another rant and a distraction from today’s issue.

What do we do with the increasingly busy office of lieutenant governor when there’s no lieutenant governor to conduct all that business?

It’s time to decide.

Next?

Posted on by
1

There’s a new sheriff in town. But the shadow of the old one lingers.

Mike Parson is in the governor’s office. The circumstances of the leadership change and the character of the new governor are reminiscent of events of forty-four years ago in Washington when Gerald Ford replaced the resigned Richard Nixon.   And the tone of new governor’s early remarks is familiar to those who remember or who have read Ford’s remarks upon taking the oath of office.  “Just a little straight talk among friends,” said Ford, not an inaugural address.

Thomas Jefferson said the people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. And down the years, Abraham Lincoln renewed this American article of faith asking, “Is there any better way or equal hope in the world?”

I intend, on Monday next, to request of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate the privilege of appearing before the Congress to share with my former colleagues and with you, the American people, my views on the priority business of the Nation and to solicit your views and their views…

…I believe that truth is the glue that holds government together, not only our Government but civilization itself. That bond, though strained, is unbroken at home and abroad.

In all my public and private acts as your President, I expect to follow my instincts of openness and candor with full confidence that honesty is always the best policy in the end.
My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. But there is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy.

As we bind up the internal wounds of Watergate, more painful and more poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us restore the golden rule to our political process, and let brotherly love purge our hearts of suspicion and of hate.

The leaders of the legislature already have invited Governor Parson to speak to a joint meeting of lawmakers gathered for the special session called to consider disciplinary action against Governor Greitens who with his family has been moved by Two Men and a Truck to their home at Innsbruck.  We wonder if the neighbors brought covered dishes and other welcome symbols to the Greitens house or whether they are waiting to see how the Greitens emerge once everything is unpacked.

They have left behind in Jefferson City the wreckage of the Greitens administration and the special House committee appointed to investigate whether impeachment articles should have been filed against him.  A special prosecutor is watching from Kansas City.

Should the committee continue to work?  Yes.

Should its subpoenas for Greitens documents be honored? Yes.

Should the special prosecutor keep investigating?  Yes.

The Speaker of the House might need to revise his order establishing the committee to authorize it to continue accumulating information about the way the Greitens administration functioned. The issue now might become the governorship itself.  And in examining how the governorship of Missouri should be managed, it is important to understand how the responsibilities of office were administered and what controls should be expected or placed on the administration of that office.  The task, therefore, might become more complicated and might require the committee to broaden its move toward conclusions, most of which might be based on what it learns about the way Eric Greitens administered the governorship.

After all, the work of the committee is the kind of thing Eric Greitens once said was important to the people of Missouri.   A year before he took office, he told St. Louis Public Radio there would be no secrets about the sources of his funding.

“The most important thing is that there is transparency around the money. We’ve already seen other candidates set up these secretive super PACs where they don’t take any responsibility for what they’re funding … because that’s how the game has always been played. I’ve been very proud to tell people, ‘I’m stepping forward, and you can see every single one of our donors.’”

We now know that he spoke with a forked tongue.  But he also repeatedly referred to himself as “the people’s governor.”  And the people deserve to know what he said they should know—about him, particularly.  He did not step forward and let people see “every single one of our donors.” The committee, to the best of its ability, should keep his promise for him.

On the day of Greitens’ resignation, information came out that the use of Confide, the app that destroys e-mails as soon as they are read, was far more extensive than Greitens had admitted or that Attorney General Hawley had uncovered.

Does the use of that app and the late revelation of the extensive use of it constitute obstruction of justice?   Lawyers can fight over that issue but the committee’s investigation of the matter is clearly warranted as an extension of the exploration of possible abuses in office by Eric Greitens, whether the destruction of Confide emails violated state records retention requirements, and whether those requirements should be amended.

The record of the administration of “the people’s governor” must be presented to the people he promised to fight for (to use another phrase he was fond of using).  The historical record of the seventeen-month administration of Eric Greitens must not be incomplete.

What the legislature has been doing since the revelations of the governor’s extramarital affair and the escalation of actions on both sides is a lesson that can guide future legislatures and future governors—and governor candidates—for decades to come.  Someday a long time from now, we hope, another legislature will look back for guidance at what the House and its committee have done and are doing. Let the record for our posterity be as complete as possible.

Resignation accomplishes several things.  Two things it should not accomplish, however, are to shield someone from history and to restrict the value of lessons from our time that may guide future generations.

Collateral Damage

Posted on by
4

Eric Greitens thought the Missouri governorship would be a step toward the White House. Instead it became a step off a cliff.

He was, as he claimed in his campaign, an outsider, which might be the only part of his campaign that turned out to be true.  He did not clean up state government, as he promised.  His administration is more likely to be remembered for arrogantly being an example of what he promised he would fight.

Six days before he announced he would resign, Team Greitens sent out a typical Greitens message:

“We knew that these baseless allegations would be exposed for what they really are: false attacks brought forward by powerful liberals and Democratic leadership. And that’s exactly what’s happened. The cases against him have been dropped or dismissed.”

Team Greitens knew that not all charges had been dropped or dismissed, knew that the pit was only growing darker.  And Team Greitens surely knew the claimed falsity of the attacks was growing weaker by the day or even by the hour. 

In his announcement of his impending departure, he went back to familiar themes voiced less than a week earlier that, frankly, sounded convincing only to his do-or-die supporters:

“This ordeal has been designed to cause an incredible amount of strain on my family. Millions of dollars of mounting legal bills, endless personal attacks designed to cause maximum damage to family and friends. Legal harassment of colleagues, friends and campaign workers, and it’s clear that for the forces that oppose us, there is no end in sight. I cannot allow those forces to continue to cause pain and difficulty to the people that I love.”

He can blame the “corrupt career politicians” who were his proclaimed enemies as much as he wants.  He can blame “liberals” for destroying the “conservative agenda” he was fighting for as much as he wishes. He can claim the ordeal his family and supporters have been through was “designed.” He hasn’t used the term “fake news” to describe the media that covered his hypocrisies and his personal and political failings, but he did try to control the message and manipulate its delivery as no governor before him had done—and, we hope, as no future governor will try to do—and did blame the media for reporting “lies.”

He can blame everybody he wants to blame but the blame begins and ends with Eric Greitens.

Significantly, he did not announce his planned resignation until a former campaign worker provided some devastating information to the special House committee considering whether to file articles of impeachment and not until a Jefferson City circuit judge had ruled that the committee was legally entitled to obtain documents from the Greitens campaign fund and from the nonprofit organization he set up to push his agenda—including ads attacking those who opposed him, even legislators within his Republican Party.

In truth, Eric Greitens ran for the office of Unit Commander, not Governor.  In the end he still has a platoon of loyalists churning out toothless rhetoric blaming everyone for his situation but Eric Greitens.  Somewhere along the way this much-vaunted SEAL team member forgot the importance of being part of a team.  As far as we know, SEAL teams don’t go around calling each other names and insinuating that they’re not worth being on the same team as the leader.  But then, leaders don’t accomplish much when they shoot at the people they need to have behind them.

But Greitens did that repeatedly with his broad-brush condemnation of the members of the General Assembly. He did not seem to recognize during his campaign and never seemed to concede during his time in office that he could accomplish little without forming relationships in the legislature. Somewhere in his highly-publicized great education he apparently ignored the idea that there are three branches of government, not just the one in which he served.

There is a sense of betrayal about the governorship of Eric Greitens.  He wasn’t what he said he would be.  Some would even argue that he wasn’t even what he said he was.

The saddest thing about Eric Greitens is the damage he has done to others because people like him take others down with them, many of them innocent.  All of the people who believed he could take them along in ever-higher circles of power and influence, even as the evidence piled up against him to the contrary, are now his victims, his collateral damage. They now are seeing his disappointment while dealing with their own and that of their friends.

“The time has come…to tend to those that have been wounded, and to care for those who need us most,” he said in his resignation announcement. 

“Those who have been wounded” include many voters who supported him because they bought his promises to make government cleaner, more principled, more of a service to all of the people, more honorable. They were not wrong for believing in him because we have to believe in somebody’s words. It would not be surprising if many of those voters who supported him because they deeply distrust government find their distrust even deeper now because Eric Greitens seems to have turned out to be at least as bad as those he disparaged during his campaign. They are collateral damage not just now but perhaps in the future because some will wonder even more if they can trust anybody seeking or serving in public office.

There’s one victim in particular who might be collateral damage, who might be the most wounded of all.

We think of this person because of something we heard another former governor talk about many years ago.

In 1976, Missouri had a young, ambitious governor who was seen as a rising star in the Republican Party, so much so that President Gerald Ford had him on his list of potential running mates when the party held its convention in Kansas City that year.   The young governor would be challenged for re-election by a populist who focused his campaign on promising to do what he could not do legally or economically—fire the Public Service Commission and lower utility rates.  Christopher Bond and his campaign failed to recognize the popularity of the Joe Teasdale promises, unrealistic though they might be, and never strongly attacked those promises.   In November, Bond lost by about 12,000 votes.  A career trajectory that might have taken him to the highest national levels nosedived.

Afterwards he spoke of the impact his crushing disappointment had on his then-wife, Carolyn.  His dreams of a second term as governor and then a rise to greater position nationally seemingly had been killed by that election outcome.  But, he recalled, the burden was double for her.  A First Lady of the state, married to a man whose political future seemed unlimited before November, 1976, saw her own dreams crash and burn in that election, too.  She had to deal with her disappointment while also dealing with his.  She carried a double burden.

We do not presume to know how Sheena Greitens has dealt with, is dealing with, or will deal with the events that have led to her husband’s downfall.  The cold reality is that those who attach themselves to a rising star whether family or friends or believers should understand that they can get burned when the star becomes a meteorite.  That does not, however, lessen the pain when that happens.

But wallowing in despair will do none of them any good.

The earth won’t stop turning while people such as Eric Greitens and his supporters rant against the collapse of their worlds or mourn their personal losses.  History is replete with examples of those who stumble or fall whose dishonor is not their doom.

The premature end of a governorship is not necessarily the end of life in public service, elected or not.  And the world doesn’t care if Eric Greitens and his friends feel sorry for themselves. He has no one to blame but himself although it might take a while for him to admit it.  He has to get on with life without being in government.

—because government will get on with life without Eric Greitens. And so will the people of Missouri.

We are reminded of some of the words from Carl Sandburg’s great poem, The People, Yes:

The people will live on.

The learning and blundering people will live on.

They will be tricked and sold and again sold

And go back to the nourishing earth for rootholds,

The people so peculiar in renewal and comeback,

You can’t laugh off their capacity to take it…

 

In the darkness with a great bundle of grief

the people march.

In the night, and overhead a shovel of stars for keeps, the people

march:

“Where to? what next?”

 

Whether state government learns any lessons from the Greitens experience and in so doing develops the courage to take actions that will rekindle confidence among the people it serves or whether it will allow the people to “be tricked and sold and again sold” is something to watch for. But many people who were skeptical about government before Greitens used that skepticism to help him get elected are even more skeptical when they see how he turned out. The job of turning them around will be even harder now should anyone make a sincere effort to try.

But, as somebody once said, the mission continues.

One word changes understanding of the past

Posted on by
Reply

—and could change the future.

The scenario is a familiar one.  A tumultuous time.  A government in chaos. The prospect of internal conflict intensifying.  A crucial meeting to forestall collapse and civil war dissolves in anger.  The federal army takes control of the capital city hours after the leader of the government flees. An interim government, backed by the military, is installed. Popular elections are suspended. Imagine that you live in the capital. Imagine that you see the federal troops marching through your city and seizing the capitol.

That’s Jefferson City, Missouri in 1861 and for the first time in American history the United States Army has invaded the capital city of a state of the union and made it an occupied town.  An amphibious landing, no less.

But where did they land?  Not an important question then.  But it is now.

Conventional wisdom has held that the landing was at the foot of Lafayette Street, the street that is between the federal courthouse and the front of the old penitentiary.

I’ve been looking at some historic images of part of the area now known as the “Missouri State Penitentiary Redevelopment” project. The state has agreed to transfer thirty-two acres of the old pen to the city, which hopes to develop the area for hotels, office buildings, entertainment venues, auditoriums, museums, boat landings and marinas, and other uses.

In the process it has occurred to your faithful observer of this past and present that one word has been misunderstood for decades in the history of Jefferson City.  Herewith we will explain how the correct interpretation creates an important historic site of state and perhaps national significance within that redevelopment project.

I call it “Lyon’s Landing.”

Negotiations to restrict federal troop movements in Missouri as the nation plummeted toward the Civil War broke down in St. Louis between Union General Nathaniel Lyon and Governor Claiborne F. Jackson with Lyon proclaiming, “This means war.” Jackson and his entourage hurried back to Jefferson City by train, burning the Gasconade River bridge behind them and ordering loyalist troops guarding the Osage River bridge to disable it. The legislature was called into an overnight session, and the governor, lieutenant governor and some lawmakers fled to Boonville.

Lyon, in St. Louis, had quickly started loading two-thousand troops on four steamboats—the Iatan, the City of Louisiana, the A. McDowell, and the J.C. Swon.  Within forty-eight hours, some of those troops were pitching camp at the Capitol.

Harper’s Weekly of July 6, 1861 recounted the arrival:

“On the morning of the 15th, ten miles below Jefferson City, General Lyon transferred his regulars to the IATAN, and proceeded with that boat, leaving the SWAN to follow in his wake. As we approached the city crowds gathered on the levee and saluted us with prolonged and oft-repeated cheering. Colonel Thomas L. Price (no relative to the rebel, Sterling Price), a prominent Unionist of Jefferson City, was the first to greet General Lyon as he stepped on shore. A bar has formed at the regular landing, and we were obliged to run out our gang plank below the penitentiary, at a point where the railroad company has placed a large quantity of loose stone, preparatory to forming a landing of its own.The steep, rough bank prevented the debarkation of our artillery, but the infantry scrambled up in fine style. First was the company of regulars formerly commanded by General Lyon, but now led by Lieutenant Hare. These were sent to occupy a high hill or bluff near the railroad depot and commanding the town. They went forward in fine style, ascending the steep acclivity at the ‘double-quick step.’ In one minute from the time of reaching the summit they were formed in a hollow square, ready to repel all attacks from foes, whether real or imaginary. Next came the left wing of the First Volunteer regiment, under Lieutenant-Colonel Andrews, five hundred strong. These soldiers were formed by sections and marched to the tune of ‘Yankee Doodle,’ with the Stars and stripes conspicuous, through the principal streets to the State House, of which they took possession amidst the cheers of the people of the town.

“After some delay in finding the keys, which had not been very carefully hid, Lieutenant-Colonel Andrews with a band, color bearer, and guard, ascended to the cupola and displayed the American flag, while the band played the ‘Star Spangled Banner,’ and the populace and troops below gave round after round of enthusiastic applause. Thus was the ‘sacred soil’ of Missouri’s capital invaded by Federal troops, and the bosom of ‘the pride of the Big Muddy’ desecrated by the footprints of the volunteer soldiers of St. Louis. She rather seemed to like it.”

A disgruntled apparent Jefferson City resident later complained in a letter to the St.Louis Daily State Journal about conditions in the city under the occupation, “They landed below the town at the State Prison….”    He signed his letter “American.”

It is that word “below” that has led to a misunderstanding of this historic event.  The usual assumption has been that “below the penitentiary” and the note that the troops “went up the road fronting the penitentiary” means the landing was at the foot of Lafayette Street from a location geographically lower than the penitentiary location.

But the word “below” meant something different to river travelers then. It meant downstream from.

For example, the steamboat Timour No. 2, blew up near Jefferson City August 26, 1854. A contemporary newspaper account said, “The boat was wooding at the time she blew up, at Edwards’ wood-yard, a short distance below Jefferson City.” (The original Timour  had been one of twenty-one steamboats destroyed in the Great St. Louis Fire of 1849.)

A study of some illustrations from Harper’s Weekly of July 6 and October 19, 1861 indicates the most likely place for the invasion was to the east of the penitentiary, in the cut between the present penitentiary property and the bluff known as Miner’s Hill where the Department of Natural Resources has its headquarters, at the end of a continuation of the present Chestnut Street, which a map (below) shows did not exist at the time of the war.

The illustration showing the Iatan unloading troops (above) with the penitentiary up and to the right of the boat, places the boat in the cut to the east. The troops are shown marching ashore and curving to the right, heading to the end of Lafayette Street.

The October illustration (right) shows troops unloading from a train (the eastern bridges having been repaired by then) with soldiers standing atop Miner’s Hill to the east of the penitentiary.  The drawing shows a building in the lower area west of the bluff that also shows in the image of the Iatan’s unloading.

So it appears the landing/unloading site was at the foot of what is now Chestnut Street. Two other images tend to confirm that.

An 1865 map of Jefferson City’s defenses done by the War Department’s Office of Chief of Engineers shows Lafayette Street curving behind the penitentiary and its brickyard to a place that approximately matches where soldiers are shown marching up the hill in the July 6  Harper’s drawing.  In this map, Chestnut Street does not yet exist. Today, it continues down the hill toward the river.  Had it existed in 1861, there would have been no need for the troops to follow the path they are going in the Iatan picture.

Confirming the location of that path is an 1869 “Bird’s eye view” of Jefferson City, then a town of about 3,100 residents (not counting the soldiers).

At the far left edge of the city is seen the penitentiary. The draw that is the continuation of Chestnut Street today is visible.  And the path also can be seen connecting the end of Lafayette Street with the area shown in the Harper’s drawing as the disembarkation point for the troops.

Chestnut street exists in the 1869 illustration, but only as a link between High Street and the city cemetery.

Understanding that “below the penitentiary” or “below the town” means downstream changes the understanding of that historic event.

Why is this discovery important to the city’s redevelopment of the penitentiary area?  Because it now adds a possibly important historic element to the redevelopment area.  The entire riverfront of the site from the extension of Chestnut to Lafayette is now the invasion path followed in the first takeover in national history by the United States  Army of a state capital.

Lyon’s Landing Historic Site. Could it make a difference in how the site is redeveloped?  Could it mean new funding for part of that redevelopment?   Could the designation have an impact on the ultimate development of the rest of the area to the east where DNR now has its headquarters?

Others have those answers.  We’ve just corrected the historical record—because for a reason we cannot explain, a new understanding of the word “below” popped into our mind a few days ago.

 

 

 

 

It is what it is

Posted on by
Reply

And what it is, is the last week of the second session of the 99th General Assembly of Missouri. This week had been a two-fer until Monday afternoon when the invasion of privacy case against the governor was dismissed.  Reporters until then had to try to keep one eye on the legislature’s actions and the other on the court actions in St. Louis.

This session seems to have had less pointed—and tiring—partisanship than some sessions in the past, perhaps because both parties have focused on a governor who has few friends among lawmakers instead of on the politics of each other.  Legislative leaders, particularly Speaker Todd Richardson and Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard, have worked hard to keep the general assembly focused on its job, even when its job in the House of Representatives has included an investigation of the governor.

Both Richard and Richardson are leaving the legislature early next year when their successors are sworn in.  Richard has had his eight years in the House and his eight years in the Senate and the people in his district will never again have a chance to let him represent them again because of term limits.  Richardson could run for the Senate someday. But he has not filed for any office for this year’s elections.

Their jobs won’t really be done as of 6 p.m., Friday, though. The special session that can focus entirely on the governor begins half an hour later.  Lawmakers will have a month to decide if he should be impeached—and the attention of an investigating committee is increasingly focused on the governor’s dark money operations, some of which have produced attacks on legislators who have not forgotten or forgiven. And new revelations keep accumulating about the governor and dark money.

This has turned into a legislative session nobody signed up for.  Events since opening day and the later State of the State message from the governor have scrambled whatever the legacy this session leaves. Maybe that legacy will include a bequest for the 100th General Assembly to handle.

One of the densest shadows over this session is that of dark money.  Lawmakers have talked of doing something about it for years but haven’t done it.  It has become, regretfully, oxygen to too much of the political system.

Memory tells us that the best time to change a poor status quo is the year after an election when the pressure of winning another term is lessened for a few months.  Perhaps 2019 will be a good time to recall a couple of memorable things attributed to the colorful former Speaker of the California Assembly, Jesse M. Unruh, who said, “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”

But his more important observation is, “If you can’t take their money, drink their booze, eat their food, (have sex with) their women and vote against them, you don’t belong here.”

Maybe next year’s lawmakers will be the ones to do more than complain about dark money.  Trouble is, many of them will have benefitted from it.

The Missouri Capitol has many mottos that were carved into its walls more than a century ago to inspire the public and its public officials to noble actions.  Maybe it’s time for a new one, starting with, “If you can’t take their money…..”

 

 

 

Getting an earful

Posted on by
Reply

Among the greatest inventions in world history is the ability to record sound and movement. Until Thomas Edison came along with a waxed cylinder that preserved sound, there was no way to hear the great singers, orators, preachers, reformers—or others who shaped cultures unless you were where they were.  And until the motion picture, there was no way to preserve moving images of those who made those sounds.

Part of President Benjamin Harrison’s speech in 1889 is the oldest known surviving recording of a President’s voice. The oldest moving image of a President dates to 1897, a film of the inaugural procession of William McKinley.

The combination of sound and film appears to have been demonstrated in 1900 in Paris but it was more than twenty years before motion pictures with sound became commercially affordable to produce.

This around-the-barn-and-through-the-back-door kind of story-telling in which we sometimes indulge brings us to the story of the death of Judge Harry Stone on April 16.

Judge Stone was the fictional judge of a Manhattan night court, played by comedian and magician Harry Anderson.  A video of Anderson’s “Hello Sucker” night club act is available on YouTube.  At the end, Anderson passes along some advice from famed New York newspaper columnist Damon Runyon.

The advice is useful to heed during campaign years.

If you are a fan of great Broadway musical theatre or Hollywood musicals based on Broadway musicals, you recognize the names of Nathan Detroit and Sky Masterson as being creations of Runyon and main characters in Guys and Dolls.

The advice comes when Detroit bets Masterson one-thousand dollars that Mindy’s delicatessen sold more strudel than cheesecake a day earlier. Masterson refuses to take the bet and explains:

“When I was a young man about to go out into the world, my father says to me a very valuable thing.  ‘Son,’ the old guy says, ‘I’m sorry that I am not able to bankroll you a very large start.  But not having any potatoes to give you, I am going to give you some very valuable advice.  One of these days in your travels, you are going to come across a guy with a nice brand new deck of cards, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the Jack of Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear.  But, son, do not take this bet, for if you do, as sure as you are standing there, you are going to end up with an ear full of cider.’”

Every two years when campaign time comes around, it’s advisable to recall that advice.  If you don’t, you need to always carry a towel.

Suspension (a continuation of last week’s discussion)

Posted on by
Reply

Last week’s entry about whether a governor facing a criminal charge and/or impeachment could be suspended with or without pay until his or her criminal situation cleared up brought a response from longtime colleague Bob Watson, who has had his nose deeper in the statute books and the Missouri Constitution than your faithful scribe has had his.

Bob thinks we already have what was discussed in that entry, pointing to Section 106.050 of the statutes, reading, “If any officer shall be impeached, he is hereby suspended from exercising his office, after he shall be notified thereof, until his acquittal.”

Bob also recalls that when the Attorney General tried to oust Secretary of State Judi Moriarty after her impeachment, the Missouri Supreme Court suspended her with pay until her impeachment trial ended. The ruling said the only allowable means of removal of a statewide elected official is through the impeachment process and the legislature could not legally enact laws automatically removing any elected executive official.

And three responses to last week’s entry (posted with the entry) from Bill Thompson offered similar clarifications.  We thank Bob and Bill for their assistance.

Our entry last week spoke to suspension before impeachment, however.  But suspension does involve removal from the office and it seems Bob is correct that a suspension before impeachment wouldn’t work.  It seems, therefore, that our point last week that a governor is, indeed, not like other workers who can be suspended upon filing of criminal charges. In his case, impeachment charges have to be filed, too.  Or at least as we now understand it.

We had overlooked one possibility covered by Article IV, section 11B of the State Constitution, which sets up a Disability Board made up of the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, the auditor, treasurer, attorney general, the president pro tem, the speaker of the house, and the majority floor leaders of the two chambers.  That board has the power to declare a governor unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, upon which finding the gubernatorial succession protocol kicks in.

That only time we know of that such a board met and took action was in the hours immediately after Governor Carnahan’s plane crash, before confirmation of his death.  The board met and cleared the way for Lt. Governor Roger Wilson to become acting governor until there was that confirmation, at which point he was sworn in as the governor.

While some have questioned the governor’s ability to govern under present circumstances, he has been making the point that he can “discharge the powers and duties of his office,” by making appointments and making public appearances and speaking as the elected chief executive of the state.

The discussion highlights the uniqueness in Missouri history of today’s situation, however.  However it turns out will be an important guide should Missourians ever face something like this again.

—–

In a related note, we see that Rachael Herndon Dunn, the editor of the Missouri Times newspaper (which is different from the Missouri Times quarterly newsletter of the State Historical Society of Missouri and the earlier Missouri Times newspaper of the 1970s) says in the latest edition of the newspaper’s magazine that the three people she would pick, if she could pick three people to join her for dinner, would be Bob Griffin, Bill Webster, and Eric Greitens.

Interesting.  But what could they possibly have in common to discuss?

Not just another employee

Posted on by
3

Last week’s entry, “The Process,” caught the eye of fellow former Capitol scribe Steve Kraske, once the ace political reporter for the Kansas City Star and now an associate teaching professor at UMKC.  Steve also does a weekly radio show about current events on NPR affiliate KCUR-FM.   He decided we needed to talk about “The Process” on his Monday show this week.

http://kcur.org/post/seg-1-gov-greitens-and-process-impeachment-seg-2-saving-historical-records-umkc

In preparing for the program, it occurred to THIS former Capitol scribe that the person who holds the highest elective office in state government does not have one of the privileges that people in other walks of life have when they get into trouble.  We don’t know how having that privilege would change the way events are developing, but the idea of instituting it might bear some thought.

In private business as well as in state and local government, a person suspected of breaking the law or of violating company standards can be suspended with or without pay until legal proceedings determine if that person is guilty.  If they are, the suspension becomes termination.  If they are found NOT guilty they can expect to be made whole by their employer.

But—as far as we know—the legislature can’t suspend a governor until the courts have made their determinations.  Impeachment during that period is not suspension. It’s flat-out removal.  And if the governor is found NOT guilty, he or she has no expectation of being restored to their position.

When it comes to a governor, it’s an in-or-out matter.  And that’s a matter of concern for the governor and those in and out of the legislature as impeachment talk continues.  As we write this, we have not heard how the signature-gathering on the petition for a special session to consider impeachment is going. Three-fourths of the members of both houses have to sign the petition.  Pro-impeachment lawmakers have made their sentiments known, often loudly.  But the governor only needs twenty-six percent of the legislators to refuse to sign and the special session push fizzles.

If suspension were to become part of state law, the Lt. Governor would be the acting governor until the case is resolved.  If the governor is cleared, the Lt. Governor goes back to his or her smaller office and the governor returns to the big oval room.

Would such a system be less unpleasant than what we’re watching now?  Probably depends on the governor/legislature relationship.  Should the legislature have the power to, in effect, fire the governor before a legal determination is made in the governor’s legal cases?  It has it now.   But is it right?  Isn’t there or can’t there be some structure that gives the governor the same privilege lesser citizens have when they become targets of suspicion?

We’re just asking.

The Process

Posted on by
Reply

This is a time of strong opinions, strong statements, and strong actions.  In such times it is important to recognize there is The Process.

The Process often is ugly.  The Process often is painful. The Process often seems to take longer than it should.

But The Process is what assures us that there is order.   And without order there is no justice.

This is one of those times when The Process emerges from its normal daily work to become a prominent factor in our state political system.

This observer has seen two Speakers of the House and one Attorney General sent to prison. He has seen a Secretary of State impeached and removed from office. He has seen a State Treasurer exonerated after being charged with profiting from state funds. He has covered criminal proceedings against at least seventeen members of the House and three members of the Senate that resulted in convictions or guilty pleas to misdemeanors and to felonies.

In forty years of front line reporting in state government, he watched 1,032 people serve in the General Assembly, interviewed or covered (in one form or another) eleven governors, nine lieutenant governors, eleven Secretaries of State, eleven state auditors, ten state treasurers, and eight attorneys general.  Now he is watching something new and wondering how, in the end, this circumstance will fit into the list of those mentioned in the earlier paragraph.

For the first time in state history a sitting governor faces both criminal proceedings and the potential for removal efforts.  People from both sides are calling for him to resign.

The Process has become his greatest protection as well as his greatest threat.  It diminishes emotion.  It provides a structure for a balanced determination of justice.  It is not perfect but The Process gives balance in times of fierce attacks and equally fierce denials.

A special House committee has presented its first report of the legitimacy of allegations against the governor, who has called its work a “witch hunt.”   The committee was led by an honorable chairman, wisely picked by a Speaker who has chosen to respect The Process despite the difficulties the committee’s hearings might cause for several people whose lives have been altered by events. The committee has not judged the governor but it has concluded the key witness against him is credible.

The governor says the report was drafted without any testimony in his own defense. The committee reports the governor refused invitations to testify.  The governor says he will testify after his criminal trial ends and that is within his rights. Simply put, the stakes are higher in his criminal trial than they are in the committee’s study.  Potential loss of office is serious but not nearly as serious as a potential conviction and possible loss of freedom in the criminal case.  The governor’s decision is not really that hard to make under those circumstances. It is a legitimate part of The Process.

While the committee’s first report seems to be devastating news for the governor, it also is valuable news to the governor because it provides him and his defenders with a strong preview of the kind of testimony they will have to attack in the criminal proceeding next month.  It also provides them with a challenge.  They must determine how to undermine the credibility of that testimony without antagonizing a jury.  The governor says he is confident a jury of his peers will exonerate him.  His lawyers gain through this report an understanding of a fine line they will have to walk in disputing the validity of the testimony without making the witness so sympathetic in the eyes of the jury that the jury of peers tilts the wrong way for their client.

It’s The Process at work.

The committee report strengthens and increases the resolve of those who demand the governor resign. But it also strengthens his position that he should stay because a report is not a jury nor are those demanding his resignation jurors.  As long as The Process considers a person innocent until proven guilty within The System, he is innocent.

He still retains the powers of governor although his ability to govern remains badly weakened. But if he resigns the office he was elected to hold and then is found not guilty of criminal charges, he has no way of returning to the office in which the voters chose him to serve.

The Speaker and the President Pro Tem have said the legislature will start its process of convening a special session to consider penalties for the behavior described by the committee’s witness.  Voters in 1988 approved a constitutional amendment letting the legislature convene itself in special session for as many as thirty days without a call of the governor.  Article III, Section 20(b) says the session can be called by three-fourths of the members of the House and three-fourths of the members of the Senate, a big requirement but a possibility given the committee report and the existing poor relations between the governor and the legislature.

The House does not have the power to remove the governor.  It can only file charges.   The Senate, in the case of a sitting governor, does not have the power of removal either.  Its authority rests in appointing seven “eminent jurists” to conduct a legal proceeding.  Again, The Process brings the matter into The System where justice is determined, we should all hope, in a non-partisan and less emotional setting. Only those jurists can determine if he should forfeit his office.

This also is a time for firm hands on the reins in the legislature.  While the committee continues investigating the governor—-and there is no indication when it might drop the other shoe—the legislature still has about five weeks to focus on its lawmaking responsibilities.  The legislature must provide a budget that will keep government services going to the people who need them.  It also must determine the fates of several issues that will affect the hourly lives of Missouri citizens. That is its responsibility until 6 p.m., May 18.

It is not precluded, with three-fourths of the members agreeing, during that time from setting a date for the House to begin impeachment proceedings in a special session.  It might choose—out of respect for The Process—to set dates that do not conflict with the governor’s right as a citizen to obtain a fair trial. That’s The System, maintaining order in the legislative process.

The governor, as is his prerogative, is entitled to his office until he is removed or disqualified from holding it.  While retaining his position is not popular with many people, it is his prerogative.

The Process is in place and it is moving.   It is protecting the governor while at the same time threatening him, as it would do with you and me if we were facing serious accusations.  The result might not be what you or I would prefer.  But The Process is, in the end, our best hope for justice for you and me.

And for the governor.

(image credit: brainyquote)