24thState

Eckersley And MemoGate Wrap-Up

A settlement was reached in 2009 - Eckersley and his lawyers (the big campaign contributors to Jay Nixon who made a fortune in the tobacco settlement) got $500,000, and the case would go away with no one admitting fault.

At the time, lawyers for Ed Martin forwarded a letter to the Deputy Attorney General of Missouri, asking them to take into account the low probability of Eckersley's case actually making it to trial.

It is this letter Martin refers to when he says he did not agree with the settlement.

Martin and the other defendants had an interest in the trial going forward.  Evidence, some of which you've seen, showed that Eckersley knew he was treading on thin ice with his employment.  It showed he knew that his insubordination could get him fired.  And it at no time referenced concerns or fears about retaliation or whistleblowing.

No memo could be found where Eckersley wrote such a statement, and no email was discovered on Eckersley's computer.

Scott met with Martin on September 26th for an hour.  On September 28th, Scott returned, and this time recorded Martin in an interview.

That tape has not been made public, but there were no comments about being fired for whistleblowing.  Instead, Eckersley claims he was personally made fun of and targeted for his faith.

It was clearly an attempt to gather evidence for a lawsuit, but even then, there was no talk of whistleblowing.  That wouldn't happen until it was clear that Eckersley was indeed fired, and would not be getting recommendations to work for the Romney Presidential campaign. 

Martin and the rest of the Blunt staff aren't angels. Faced with an unstable employee, their response was to do what most HR departments do - come down hard on the employee and create a laundry list of problems to justify his termination. It was overkill, and in doing so, they put themselves in legal jeopardy.  Anyone who has dealt with an employment lawsuit knows it's essentially a shakedown versus a smear job.  That's what happens when you bring in plaintiff's lawyers.

At the same time, the legal system and its ruling do have to have meaning, and in this case, Eckersley was paid to quit suing the state.  The merits of his case were not applied.  The sole calculation was whether it would cost more to continue the lawsuit or settle out of court.

Koster decided to settle.

And let's remember, Eckersley backed out of the settlement and demanded a letter clearing his name.  He got one, as long as he promised to pay his lawyers.

That should tell you what this case was really about.

Now. Can we go back to talking about Russ's record, and whether he deserves to be sent back to the House?

 

Scott Eckersley Was Also Insubordinate

This is a four part series discussing Memogate, the lawsuit filed by Scott Eckersley against five members of the Blunt Administration.  Though the case was settled as no fault, Eckersley continues to claim he was wronged, despite taking $500,000 from the state.  These are the documents that would have made it to court, should the case have gone to trial. Judge for yourself how is lying, and whether this was a case for political gain, or justice.

Scott Eckersley is running for Congress against Billy Long in Missouri's 7th District.  He is running as a Democrat, using money the state gave him in the settlement.

Ed Martin is running for Congress in the 3rd District against Russ Carnahan.  Ed maintains Memogate was a political stunt.

Part I: Was Memogate a political stunt by Koster and Nixon?

Part II: Why is there no evidence showing Eckersley to be a Whistleblower?

Part III: Eckersley's own words condemn him as tardy, exhausted, and working for others.

Part IV: Scott Eckerlsey's insubordination

We know from emails published in Part III that Eckersley was habitually late, came up with wilder and wilder excuses, and was reprimanded on the morning of September 17th for being late, again.  We also know he was, in his own words, kept busy by the work he was doing for his father.  Both were charges leveled for his termination.  The third was that Scott was insubordinate to Henry Herschel. 

Let's see what Scott has to say about it, before he went to the press with the idea that he was a whistleblower.

In response to an email from his boss telling him not to bring personal work into the office, Scott emails this:

"If you a problem with me come in and talk to me face to face."

"I also took a 30 second phone call from my dad and told him i would call him bac later - I am sure you don't have a problem with that as you frequently take personal phone calls - so long as they don't interrupt your work."

"You know very well the number of hours I put in around here - and if you don't I am certain that others do"

Ouch.  I can't imagine anyone keeping their job after an email like that.  He berates his boss, challenges him, tells him that he's got approval from a higher authority, and then gets high and mighty about his work. Keep in mind this was also done after a prolonged problem with tardiness that resulted in Eckersley being reprimanded. 

And at no time is the Sunshine law mentioned.

 

But Eckersley knows he went too far, so seconds later, he sends another email.

This email calls for a meeting, somwhere that "doesn't echo everywhere and air this out."

This meeting with Herschel is the point in time that Eckersly claims he got in a fight about the Sunshine Law requests. This meeting ended in a shouting match between the two, preceded by this email and Eckersley's behavior.

Now I have to ask.  Where exactly is the whistleblower?  Where does Eckersley say he is fighting with people over their responses to Sunshine Requests?

He doesn't.  He would later grab onto that excuse when he knew he was getting fired.  He was not warning them of breaking the law - he was engaged in helping them work through a political situation. 

There is no urgency in the tone.  There is no plea of being heard.  There is simply complaints about his work product and timeline that extend from August through September. 

So where did the Whistleblower thing come from?

On Wednesday, September 19th, Eckersley writes a note to Ed Martin letting him know the governor made a mistake in a press conference about the employee handbook.  Martin says to forward it to Rich Chrismer.  When Chrismer gets the email, he writes to Henry Herschel to ask him to tell Scott not to email him these things, as it isn't his department. 

Scott hadn't done anything wrong - he was following Ed's instructions.  But when Herschel responds, Eckersley says Chrismer doesn't get it.

This is the sole mention of the Sunshine Law and its repercussions.  It's a relatively tame piece that is based on a specific mistake Governor Blunt makes in a press conference.

It's not earth-shaking, but it does once again lead Eckersley to snap back at his boss in an insubordinate manner. 

Here's why it matters.

If Eckersley had spent weeks and months talking about the Sunshine Law and no one was listening, he might have a point.

Instead what we see is a distracted and unreliable employee with a history of problems with his boss, an insolent tone in his email, and eventually, a shouting match with that same boss after a series of testy emails

The only pattern we see here is Eckersley's behavior.  The Sunshine whistleblowing crusade was a single email referring to a single event.  As early as five days earlier, Eckersley was telling Blunt's administration how to defend their behavior.  We are supposed to believe that from a single instance of trying to help the governor correct a mistake, a witchhunt was embarked on to blame Eckersley for all the administration's supposed sins.

In fact, this is the argument of Eckersley's defense team.  They claim the Blunt administration looked for political scapegoats because they fired long-time Democrat loyalists, and thus Scott's firing was a pattern, and not a justified termination of an insubordinate employee who was reprimanded repeatedly and admits he doesn't really care about his job because he is working on his father's business.

And we can see it in Scott's own message a few days later.

From a phone message, September 27.

"I talked to Ed yesterday and I apologized to him and I wanted to apologize to you.  I know there are some things I could do better.  I don't know that I'm taking advantage of the learning opportunity that I guess being your deputy has to offer....

..I truthfully really do like you as a person and I respect you as a professional...

...I at least wanted to go ahead and tell you that as much as my actions last week probably didn't indicate either of those things, I really, I sincerely mean both."

Now tell me. What is Eckersley apologizing for?  How did his actions the week before suggest he didn't like Herschel and didn't respect him professionally?   We know from the emails that Scott had a quick temper with his boss.  We also know he was in a stressful situation and fearful of losing his jobs, weeks before he started talking about Sunshine Request mistakes.

What we have is Scott Eckersley, in his own words, admitting that he was insubordinate to his boss, and that his actions leading up to his termination were the result of his behavior, and not an attack on his work product.

Eckersley would be fired.  When he was, the defendants claimed he demanded a new job with the Romney campaign or he would go to the press.  The administration went into lawsuit lockdown, looking for all of the evidence they might need for a lawsuit, and in doing so, put out a real stink about the issue.

It wasn't pretty, but at issue is the question of why Eckersley was fired.  From his own words, we see that Eckersley was responsible for his termination through his own behavior.

Everything else, was just politics.

 

 

Scott Eckersley Was Tardy, Exhausted, And Admits He Deserved To Be Fired

I've got a collection of documents here from the Eckersley court case.  I've sat on them for a while because the issue didn't seem important.  But with the new television ads from Russ Carnahan focusing on Ed and not Russ's votes, it's only right to oput them out there so bloggers can judge for themselves what happened in "memogate."  In these official documents, we see a completely different story than the one told by Scott Eckersley of being a noble warrior for truth. Instead we see an angry employee who was habitually late, knew he was performing poorly, and even admits that his firing is warranted. 

First, there's the question of why Eckersley was fired.  Here is what we can see from Eckersley's own words.

1) Eckersley was habitually late, coming up with flimsy excuses each time

Friday, Aug 3.

"In all sincerity I apologize for showing up late.  I know how unprofessional it is to show up late and I really did not expect this to happen again...

I have decided to place 2 or 3 additional alarms around my apt - which works well for a friend of mine w/ similar irregular sleeping patterns.  In any case, I know I have said this before, but I really will not let this happen again." 

Note that Eckersley was saying he was late before, and was apologizing again for it happening, promising to do better.

A month later, Eckerley is again writing an apology for being late. This time, he locked his keys in his car, and his cell.

Increasingly weirder excuses.  Maybe he kept his house keys on a different keyring, or maybe he wasn't at home?  We don't know - we only know that he's late, again, and apologizing for it on email. 

  And then we figure out why.

 

 

 He's been out late, getting out of there so late that he once again, can't make it into work on time.  Three times in three months, and in this case, he was yelled at by his boss, Henry Herschel.

Note the data.  September 18th.  After a series of tardiness, right before he is let go, he once again comes in late and is reprimanded for it. 

What is his response?

He asks if he could be fired, and then says it is warrented.

 

 

2) Eckersley says he doesn't care if he is fired, and that it is justified.

"its merited...but I just kind of really don't care too much."

 

And later, "Could Henry even fire me?"

On September 18, 2007, about a week before he is fired, Scott Eckersley is asking if he could be fired.  It's on his mind.  And the circumstances for being fired are that he's not showing up for work on time, and he's exhausted from working a irregular schedule.

Now tell me.  If Scott Eckersley is so worried about the Sunshine Law and retaliation, why exactly is he talking about being fired for being tardy after staying up so late on a regular basis that he sleeps through what he says are multiple alarms set through his house?

But it doesn't stop there.

Eckerlsey was accused of doing work on company time, and of being insubordinate.  The final email from this thread shows what he was working on - his father's company.

Says Eckersley, so excited that he can't wait to tell his friend, "My dad's company just signed a 20,000 life company out of texas so that has been keeping me very busy..."

In his statements the press, Eckersley routinely says he did only a few hours of work on his father's business, and did it off work time.

But from this email, we see that in his mind, he has been very busy.  He's been very busy in the exact same time frame that he is showing up tardy, and that he was fired in.

So it's fair to ask - was Eckersley fired because he was a whistleblower (no evidence), or because he was tardy, working on other business, and, shall we say, insubordinate?

Because there's more.

Russ Carnahan Ad Falsely Calls Scott Eckersley Whistleblower

The story behind the Eckersley Memogate is that Scott was a whistleblower about the Sunshine laws.

From Russ Carnahan.com:

FACT: Sometime in Sep. 2007, a young in-house lawyer named Scott Eckersley warned Ed Martin, Matt Blunt and others that their e-mails were subject to open records laws and records retention schedules. He was then promptly fired, tarred and feathered by Ed Martin and the Blunt administration. (Associated Press, Nov. 17, 2008)

No evidence suggests that is the case.

1) The single cited story by Russ Carnahan, or by anyone, claiming proof of emails written by Eckersley comes from an AP story written on November 17, 2008.

Here is that email.

Note carefully that the email is a legal opinion on the way the Governor's office can respond to allegations of illegally deleting emails.

Specifically, Eckersley's counsel is that if the records are not retained, they don't fall under the Sunshine law.

Should there be a question, Eckersley continues, drag Jay Nixon into it to force him to talk about what it means.

It's a political and legal document.  No where does it say that Eckersley is warning Henry that what he is talking about is improper.

And yet this is the smoking gun the AP reported on.

The next Monday, Eckerlsey reiterates his case in a reply to Herschel.  

 

"So long as they are not retained."

 

The argument from the governor's office was that they could delete emails that weren't public off their personal accounts, because they were saved in back-up accounts.

It's a weak argument, but from talking to four of the principals involved, it was in response to a deluge of Sunshine Requests that were delivered daily.

Matt Blunt took over from Bob Holden, who in turn took over from Mel Carnahan.  12 years of Democratic rule had left a lot of legacy Democrats in state offices.  These Democrats would routinely leak information to folks like Roy Temple, who's political website FiredUpMissouri was really just a gossip site designed to attack Blunt using state employees.

Using a strategy similar to what the Left used on Sarah Palin in Alaska, left-wing groups barraged the governor's office with Sunshine Requests to bog them down. 

When the Post Dispatch and Springfield News Leader sent record requests, they were stymied. They eventually went to court over the issue of payment, and eventually Blunt's office backtracked and decided to provide all of the emails that the newspapers asked for. 

Nothing was found.  Despite hundreds of thousands of emails delivered, nothing was ever found on Ed Martin on any other of the staff.

What was left was Eckerlsey, fired for insubordination, claiming he was a whistleblower.

Hundreds of thousands of emails - and the only "scandal" is the one that doesn't have any proof.

More on this later.

Unablogger Reminds Post Dispatch Of Democratic Donations From Accused Steffen

The Democrats have enjoyed a funding advantage since the passage of campaign finance reform, both from progressive billionaires and their foundations, and from the increasing number of Ponzi schemes and fraudulent investment partnerships that yielded millions to Democrats, but fleeced investors.

It's a major story line that includes Norman Hsu, Tony Rezko, Hassaa Namazee, Bernie Madoff, not to mention the DSCC itself, who under Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer shook down the banking industry to bankroll the Democrats for promises of bailouts to Goldman Sachs. 

And yet, this major story line, with plenty of potshots to be taken, is completely ignored by the Post Dispatch in the report on John Steffen, the owner of Pyramid Construction, Inc, who stands accused of fraud changes in St Louis real estate and commercial loans.

Never fear - an unpaid local blogger did the work, pointing out that Steffen has been a reliable Democratic political donor to the tune of over $200,000 to local and national Democrats.

Tim Logan starts the story with a reference to a presidential award (given by Laura Bush) for historical revitalization), but seems to miss the story of yet another highly connected Democratic donor confronted with criminal charges.

From the Unablogger:

"Major recipients of Steffen’s largesse include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), four members of Missouri’s Carnahan political dynasty, committees funding the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress in 2006, and President Barack Obama.

Steffen was particularly generous to Reid, whose state is over 1,500 miles away from Steffen’s St. Louis home. In addition to $4,000 in 2004 to the then minority leader’s 2006 reelection campaign, Steffen also donated $17,500 to Searchlight Leadership Fund (Reid’s Leadership PAC) and $15,000 to the Nevada State Democratic Party.

Steffen was a major financier of Democrats’ successful effort to reclaim control of Congress in 2006. In addition to his contributions to the Reid campaign and associated committees, Steffen donated over $83,000 to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee between 2005 and 2008, another $16,000 in 2005-2007 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and generous direct contributions to the successful 2006 campaigns of Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Ben Nelson (D-FL), Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) (plus over $2,000 to Missouri Victory 2006, which was linked to McCaskill) that were key to the party’s success in winning control...

In Missouri, Steffen was especially generous to the Carnahan Dynasty. He contributed a thousand dollars to the late Mel Carnahan’s 2000 senate campaign, $2,000 to the unsuccessful 2002 re-election campaign of former Sen. Jean Carnahan, $2,000 in 2003 to the successful 2004 congressional campaign of Rep. Russ Carnahan, and a like amount in 2005 to his 2006 re-election campaign. Robin Carnahan received $1,175 in 2003 for her 2004 campaign for Missouri Secretary of State, with like amounts from at least two corporate members of The Pyramid Group. All of those contributions represented the maximum legal amounts at the time they were made. Corporate contributions are legal for campaigns for state office, but not federal office."

Speaking of donations from real estate titans to St Louis politicos, did anyone ever follow up on the $10,000 check written to Brian Wahby after Robert Wislow gave $10,000 to the St Louis City Dems?  And speaking of Lewis Reed, and Russ Carnahan, would their success in commercial real estate (the $150,000 windfall from selling the property for Castle Ballroom LLC) have anything to do with their friendliness with Steffen?  Maybe he gave them some pointers?

The Post Dispatch may not have time to look into it:  luckily those unpaid, unedited layers of fact-checkers known as bloggers have some time.  Great job, Unablogger.

Will The Real "Kathleen Rhymer" Please Stand Up?

We wrote a story earlier this week about the lack of continuity of the signatures on Citizens for a Better Arnold's Missouri Ethics Commission filing reports.  Particularly, the former treasurer Joan Elders (or J. Elders), and the way she (or someone) signed those forms.  Apparently this phenomenon is not unique to Ms. Elders' handwriting.

CFABA filed an Amended Statement of Committee Organization on March 12, 2010 switching the treasurer from Joan Elders to Kathleen Rhymer.  CFABA then filed an Electronic Filing Waiver Agreement with the MEC on March 19, 2010.  When examining these documents, the same glaring irregularity once again became apparent.  The signatures didn't match.

3/12/2010:  Signature Block on MEC Amended Statement of Committee Organization

3/19/2010:  Signature Block on MEC Electronic Filing Waiver Form.

 

So which one is Mrs. Rhymer's real signature.  I obtained a copy of the deedthat Mr. & Mrs. Rhymer signed to convey their property on 2142 Kehrt (located in the area now known as Arnold Commons) to the City of Arnold during the whole Arnold Commons/THF/Eminent Domain debacle.   Here is the signature Block from that deed:

Signature Block from Doc. No. 2006R-001639 of the Jefferson County Public Records.

 

Uh-Oh

It's very clear to me that whomever signed that Electronic Filing Waiver on 3/19 was not Mrs. Rhymer.  So who could it have been?  Maybe the header on the top of the scanned Electronic Waiver Report could give us a clue:

The Report was sent via fax from the home of Robert K Sweeney.  So lets compare Mr. Sweeney's signature to that of the Electronic Waiver Form:

Signature Block of MEC Electronic Waiver Form.

Signature Block from Robert Sweeney's property.   General Warranty Deed recorded in Book 15637 Page 1938 of the St. Louis County Public Records.

 

You can be the judge of who you think really signed that Electronic Waiver.  But the fact is that it's unclear who is controlling the funds in the CFABA bank account.  And with over $17,000 spent by CFABA to elect 4 new City Councilpersons in Arnold, that is a very important question that needs to be answered.  As 24thState.com has reported, we've already seen this type of planning and execution of the progressive playbook before.  And, we've already seen Mr. Sweeney's propensity to funnel money from one organization to another to benefit himself.  Time will tell as to what is really going on in Arnold.

Project Vote Feared It Couldn't Sue Without Carnahan's Help

Ron Berry came to Secretary of State Carnahan's office through Missouri Pro-Vote, a far left group with heavy ties to ACORN and SEIU.  In 2007, he was extremely helpful to Project Vote's Michael Slater and ACORN's Jeff Ordower, proving them timely access to information, including research into quotations from Republicans.

But that's not the worst of it.  Berry was considered a safe bet to pass confidential information to inside Carnahan's office. This string of emails from October 28, 2008 is a smoking gun showing how the most radical elements of Carnahan's staff kept information from lawyers involved in gathering information for a pending lawsuit on voter rolls.

This email thread discusses a press release to be sent out threatening litigation if Project Votes demands are not met.  It involves ACORN, Project Vote, the Advancement Project, and a public relations firms called Massey Media.  The people involved are deciding on whether or not to use the threat of litigation in the press release to put additional pressure on the Jackson County Board of Elections.

 Nicole Kovite of Project Vote dissents, stating that the threat of litigation may shut off her communications with Secretary of State lawyers who are crucial in gathering information to bring the lawsuit.

She says, 

    If the SOS does not answer my questions about this procedure, we may not have enough information to bring a lawsuit at all right now. I am very concerned that if this press release goes out with the paragraph that mentions litigation, that the SOS will not return my calls and we will be cut off from some very important information.

Simply stated, a press release leak about litigation may prevent us from bringing a lawsuit at this point.

That is some damning material. Kovite is clear that threats of litigation will stop the lawsuit from going forward.

And then the unthinkable happens.  Jeff Ordower forwards the entire email thread to Ron Berry in Robin Carnahan's office, with instructions not to reply to this email.  The email is sent to his blackberry, and it's clear that Ordower is under the mistaken impression that this thread won't show up in a Sunshine Request if Berry doesn't reply. 

Big Mistake. Huge.

In forwarding this email, Ordower is giving Ron Berry access to information that Project Vote plans to sue.  Why does Ordower feel that Berry won't immediately take this to higher ups and shut down communication with Nicole Kovite?  Why is Berry given insider information that was just discussed as damaging to Kovite's research?

There is no question as to why.  They know Berry will pass it on only to the right people inside Robin Carnahan's office.

This is the price you pay for hiring far left wing radicals into your staff.  The next question is what is to be done about it.

Lawyer For Robin Carnahan Contacted ACORN Lawyers Suing Missouri

In the ACORN documents posted online by the MOGOP, one particular response stands out in an odd way.  The email is a request for a phone number sent from Brian Mellor of Project Vote to Barbara Wood, the senior counsel for the Secretary of State.

Normally a request for a number would be something casual, but a cache of documents I found online on election law provides an important glimpse into how the Secretary of State's office worked with Project Vote and against the Department of Social Services.

This email from Brian Mellor provides a direct contact to Barbara, seemingly at her request, on October 9, 2008.

Keep in mind that the lawsuit had already been filed, and the injunction put in place.  This contact with Richard Cairns is about something new, the attempt by the St Louis Board of Elections to join the Missouri Secretary of State to ACORN V. Scott.  The St Louis Board of Elections, as an LEA (local election authority), attempted to say that coordination of the NVRA was the responsibility of Robin Carnahan, and she was necessary to enforce the rules asked for in the ACORN suit.

On October 14, 2008 - five days after this email was sent, Richard Cairns, one of the lawyers suing the State of Missouri, filed a brief in opposition to the Stl Board of Election Request to add Robin Carnahan.

Sometime between October 9 and October 14, it is reasonable to assume that Barbara Wood, in her official capacity as the lawyer for Robin Carnahan, called a lawyer for ACORN and spoke to him about the this motion.  That discussion, or phone call, and its notes, are discoverable.  They are not protected by work product, or attorney-client privilege, because the contact itself makes the information "open." 

Carnahan's Chief of Staff Mindy Mazur Opens Door To ACORN Lawsuit

The information and timeline you'll see over the length of this story is not my original research.  Credit has to be given to a group of mothers and grandmothers that have organized into a Document Party.  These patriots did the majority of the work, digging through hundreds of documents, making connections, doing research, color coding files, adding smiley faces - and ultimately laying out an argument that Robin Carnahan's staff invited Project Vote, ACORN, and their political allies to take our money, use the courts to intimidate and coerce our state officials, and ultimately worked to further the political goals of national progressives at the expense of Missouri voters.  The documents you'll see come from a variety of sources.  First, the Missouri GOP made Sunshine Requests for ACORN documents from the Secretary of State's office. They've published the documents and their conclusions on a site called ACORNCARNAHAN.com. When I found about this, I asked them for copies.  To these, I added my own Sunshine Requests to the Department of Social Services, internet research, and some extra sources that I'll reveal in due time.

The ladies went through the documents in detail.  What they found, was substantiation of the accusations of close ties between ACORN and Robin Carnahan.  Carnahan's statements that she was simply performing the duties of her office are incorrect.  She set us up.  Here's the beginning of the story. 

Part I: An Authoritative Statement of Fact:

Robin Carnahan's campaign manager is Mindy Mazur.  Mindy was her former chief of staff for the Missouri Secretary of State before moving over to be the Missouri State Director for America Votes, a progressive umbrella organization I've shown in past blog posts is coordinating over a $1,000,000  in advertising attacks on Carnahan's likely Senate opponent, Roy Blunt.

That's the present.  Today, I want to talk about the past, namely Mazur's time as the chief of staff for Carnahan, and her involvement in the lawsuit against Missouri that led to a $450,000 judgement for lawyer fees to ACORN and its allies.

We start with a series of emails traded back and forth between Michael Slater and Mindy Mazur from March 13-March 14, 2007.  In these emails, and in subsequent contact, Mazur takes the initiative in driving information and suggestions to Slater, which are then translated into requests for action by the Secretary of State's of office.  Those requests for action are met quickly, and then used by Project Vote to advance their legal case against the State of Missouri.

More Payments From Ed Kemp To Mike Dalton

I'm going to have to start calling Bob Sweeney and Ed Kemp the Hansel and Gretel of Jefferson County. The trail of bread crumbs they left on the way to using taxpayer funds to pay off political allies could lead even Charles Jaco to some quality journalism. 

This is another MEC filing from Ed Kemp, this time paid to Forefront Organizing instead of Frontline Organizing (both run by Mike Dalton), and the dates and times are very close indeed to the decision to use Dalton's front organization group of professional organizers to run an educational campaign for E911.

Committee To Elect Ed Kemp, September 2008

So now we have at least $3300 paid by Ed Kemp to Mike Dalton in 2008 for political purposes, followed by a huge contract that would eventually end with $186,000 of taxpayers money going to a "company" whose very invoices prove they outsourced the work.

I make good money - but I don't make it in one fell swoop from a government contract with no references, no registration in the state of Missouri, and no disclosure that the guys we're paying also happened to work to get me elected.

I'm betting none of you do either.