This will be a little like that, only just dealing with some of the things that have occurred in the City during the past year.

• The big issue two years ago when I was elected was the Police/Fire Pension deficit and the fund’s ability to tip Springfield into bankruptcy.  Now, after some reorganization of the Pension Board, some of their investment decisions, and the temporary tax that voters approved, we have the numbers headed in the right direction for the first time in a number of years.  In addition, City Council had made several promises to voters at the time of the tax election and we have kept every one of those.

• Led by Mayor O’Neal, the Council has opened up the decision-making process and has utilized several citizen-staffed task forces.  Not only does this give Springfield more voices at the table, but it enables voters to have a first-hand look at complicated issues and a deeper understanding of what City Council members have to wrestle with from time to time.

• In addition, we “borrowed” an idea from our neighbors to the west (Joplin, MO) and established a citizens tax oversight committee.  This group of citizens have access to all the numbers showing sales tax receipts from the state and then the various deposits of those funds.  In this way, citizens and voters can be assured that the City is using the tax revenues in the way we promised they would be.

• And speaking of Joplin, you can’t talk about 2011 with mentioning the tornado that hit our sister municipality to the west in May.  Once the tornado lifted, their first call was to Springfield and the message was simple, “We need help.”  And Springfield responded.  Within an hour, we had two collapsed-building rescue teams on the way to Joplin, followed by many, many additional firefighters and police officers (all of whom volunteered for the duty) during the next few weeks.

• Also, a tip of the hat to our Public Works personnel who also were detailed to assist in the clean-up in Joplin.  After Joplin administrators made the decision to clear the streets first, it was many of our PW folks who helped get the roads open again.

• And a heart-felt thanks to all the other City employees and City Utilities personnel who either volunteered through their jobs, through their churches, or other organizations to help our neighbors in Joplin.  I have heard several of the Joplin administrators speak about the outpouring of help from all over the country, but every one of them singles out Springfield for special praise.

• While we’re talking about disasters, Springfieldians raised over $54,000 to send to our Sister City of Isesaki, Japan following the huge earthquake and tsunami.  When we began the campaign to raise money, we were hoping for $10,000, with a stretch goal of $15,000.  The final total just blew us away and I don’t think I’ve ever been prouder of Springfield than when talking about how we reacted to these two disasters, one close and one half a world away.

• And to end up the year on a positive note, at our last Council study session of the year, our outside auditors delivered a glowing report of the way Springfield handled its money.  We have delivered the services we promised; we were able to pay down some of our debt; and we were able to put some additional funds back in reserves.  As City Manager Greg Burris has said on several occasions, “We operated a balanced budget without dipping into reserves, without using one-time money for operations, and without borrowing.”

• And the other positive item coming at the end of the year, Springfield was noted as the #3 City in the nation in job growth.  While our unemployment is still higher than we want it to be, we’re still far better off than many of our other similarly-sized cities around the country.  And we’re working hard to grow jobs here and to bring new jobs to the area.

• Finally, it’s been a lot of work on behalf of City Council, but especially the great team of people who work for the City of Springfield.  All of us should send a little thank-you their way whether

• we see someone repairing a pot-hole,
• we receive an answer to a question regarding zoning
• a police officer helps clear an accident from an intersection
• we hear a fire truck rushing to another medical call
• we get an answer to a Sunshine request
• we flush the toilet and it goes somewhere
• a relative arrives at the airport for a visit
• we take our grandkids to a park.

• Springfield is poised for another great year in 2012.  I look forward to the challenges, but also to the continued good news coming our way.  As the slogan at the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce goes, “Every place should be like this!”

Earlier this week, the Mayor and I met with four journalists and two translators from the Ukraine who were in Springfield studying democracy in general and our municipal government in particular.  The over-arching conclusion that I came away from this meeting with was that we her in Springfield and the US truly take our systems of government for granted. 

The four journalists from the Crimean Sea insisted on taking our photos with each one of them so they could prove that they actually were in the same room with us.  In their country, the Mayor travels in an entourage of four large black vehicles with four large bodyguards—even though, as the journalists related, there is no threat to the Mayor.  In addition, the general populace cannot enter the municipal building nor talk directly with members of the City Council.  They can send letters, but they have no idea if the letters are read or acted on.

In addition, our system of government is far more transparent.  In the Ukraine, only recently has a law been passed to require government entities to provide minutes of official meetings to journalists.  Contrast that to our Freedom of Information Act on the national level and the Sunshine Law on the state and local levels.  Furthermore, the amount of information on our municipal website is phenomenal, especially in comparison to our visitors’ home city.

The journalists also mentioned that, in their hometown, the Mayor owned the company that counted the ballots for City Council elections and, as a result, members of the City Council who were friends or relatives of the Mayor kept getting re-elected.  The Mayor and I took great pains to explain that both Greene County’s County Clerk and Springfield’s City Clerk zealously guarded their reputations for being independent and unbiased elections officers. 

One point that I made was that, even though the Mayor and I had different political philosophies, we could put those aside to work on the major issues for the City of Springfield.  Of course, there was a light-hearted moment when I held my hands about a foot apart in describing the difference in philosophies and the Mayor was holding his hands about three feet apart!  But our visitors got the point—if people of differing viewpoints had faith in our system of government—they could work together for the betterment of the community.

Finally, Mayor O’Neal stressed that the United States had been working on developing a democratic society for over 225 years, while those folks in the Ukraine were in the very beginning stages.  We stressed that we still didn’t have a perfect system, but that we continued to work on it.  The journalists were coming from a country with a long history of totalitarianism and that it would take a long time for them to convert completely to a democracy.  But the fact that they were allowed to come here and to report on what they found is a very encouraging step.  We wish them continued luck. 

And the Mayor and I left the meeting with a renewed pride in our system of government and in how Springfield handles the issues it’s faced with.

The weather changes because the cool, dry air from the Rockies tends to collide overhead with the warm, moist air coming up from the Gulf. Those collisions, when the conditions are right, produce an amazing array of weather, ranging from a gentle rain to the type of storm that recently struck Joplin.

Metaphorically speaking, a similar collision is beginning to take place—not overhead—but under our feet, as we as a City continue the generations-long conversation about land development and re-development.  The most recent example is the request by developers to build a five-story hotel on the south side of Republic Road, just north of the Ravenwood sub-dvision.

Obviously, the neighbors don’t want a five-story hotel looking down on their backyard bar-b-ques, on their sunbathing, or simply spoiling the skyscape.  This has been named the NIMBY syndrome, meaning “Not in my back yard.” 

We’ve seen this syndrome all over town--ranging from the neighbors to the east not wanting the PD330 zoning changing from agriculture to commercial to mid-town neighbors fighting the Salvation Army’s plan for a homeless shelter to everyone in the world (it seems) weighing in on City Utilities’ efforts to relocate the outgrown and outdated bus transfer station.

There is a trend in the planning and development world that is also impacting the conversation:  that of New Urbanism.  As near as I can tell as a lay person, the New Urbanism is the old small town.  If you look at many of our small towns in the 30’s and 40’s, you saw commercial areas adjacent to residential areas.  You can see remnants of this if you drive or walk or bike east from South Avenue along either Walnut Street or Elm Street.  You see the commercial buildings running out to Jefferson or Kimbrough and then you quickly enter a residential area.  Same thing occurs if you move south from Walnut along South Market, South Main, or South Grant.

The new phrase to try to sell the old ways is “mixed use.”  We on Council keep hearing from planners about the benefits of mixed use:  denser populations, the ability to walk or bike instead of taking cars, and living above commercial areas. The other side of that coin is that cities don’t have to build more miles of streets, police and fire protection can cover better if the population is concentrated, and the other elements of a city’s infrastructure do not have to be expanded and maintained—the delivery of utilities, the sewer lines, and traffic controls.

Unfortunately, Springfield has always been and is a prairie town. We live right on the edge of the prairie that stretches from around Lamar west to the Rockies.  We are used to—in the past—hopping on our horses and riding.  In more modern times, we’re used to hopping in the car or pickup truck and driving.

One of the things that has accelerated the conversation about mixed use and concentrating the population more has been the several year recession that we’re in.  Not only is the unemployment rate hovering between 9% and 10% nationally, but because of foreign wars and civil unrest in the Middle East, gasoline prices are at levels that we haven’t seen before.

Back during the Arab oil embargo of the 70’s, Americans gave up their big cars for smaller vehicles that got better gas mileage.  Today, technology has developed to the point that we have hybrid cars—running on both gasoline and electricity.  However, it remains to be seen if folks will really abandon their SUVs in favor of smaller, lighter vehicles.  Will we give up our stallions and ride a Shetland pony? I don’t know.

However, I do know the conversation about mixed use will continue as long as it’s the current fad in planning circles.  And the arguments will continue at that nexus between residential areas and commercial developments, especially if we keep trying to concentrate populations by building vertically instead of horizontally.   Nobody in a single-family dwelling wants to live next to five, seven, or 25 story building—regardless of its use.

So, the discussion continues.

Once upon a time, there was this hypothetical elected city leader.  And this hypothetical city leader rode herd on a rather unruly, eight-person hypothetical city council.  And the hypothetical city that they served was hypothetically governed by a Charter—passed down by generations before.

By tackling some hypothetically difficult issues and solving them, the hypothetical city leader and council developed some hypothetical political capital.  And the hypothetical city leader developed quite a bit of political capital with the unruly members of the council.

And it came to pass that an issue appeared before said council that dealt with hypothetically obeying the law.  However, due to a quirk in the hypothetically-governing Charter, the options available to the city council were hypothetically awful.

A hypothetically public hearing was called; public discussions occurred with the hypothetical city leader presiding. The hypothetical editorial board of the local paper weighed in; hypothetical patriots argued in circles with each other in hypothetical capital letters in the comments section.

Meetings were held by different hypothetical interest groups.  Hypothetical Retro-Sixties demonstrations were called for some hypothetically unclear reason.  Potential solutions were passed back and forth between hypothetically opposed groups dealing with the issue. No hypothetical solution could be agreed upon.

During the final week of discussion, the hypothetical elected city leader proposed a solution and hypothetically lobbied for it.  The unruly, eight-person hypothetical city council conferred with hypothetical political bases, with hypothetical supporters, and hypothetically with each other—taking care not to violate any hypothetical orb-in-the-sky state law.

Although hypothetically unhappy with the options, the unruly, eight-person hypothetical city council came to realize that the hypothetical option-being-lobbied-for by the hypothetical city leader might work, at least as a hypothetically stop-gap measure.  And so, hypothetically grumbling, the council arrived to do its work, one hypothetical member being absent for family reasons.

During the proceedings, hypothetical unruly member after unruly member weighed in on the hypothetical situation.  The hypothetical petitioners came in for their share of hypothetical criticism as well as spots of isolated hypothetical praise.  Hypothetical founding fathers were quoted; hypothetical statistics were bloated.  But at the end, it was time to vote . . . hypothetically speaking.

For some reason, the hypothetical city leader—who had been lobbying the hypothetical unruly council—suddenly, and without hypothetical warning, changed his vote.  The tally when the dust cleared:  4-4, which means the same as a hypothetical “no” vote.

Many hypothetical political watchers were baffled; the hypothetical clerk sent a text message to the dais to confirm that the hypothetical leader had not inadvertently hit the wrong button.  The hypothetical leader offered no reason for the change in vote prior to the adjourning of the meeting.

So, the issue will go before the hypothetical voters next year.  And the hypothetical city will bear a $140,000 expense for the election.  The ballot issue continues to have flaws—real, not hypothetical and the hypothetical city will have to pay to defend the measure—if it hypothetically passes—to the Supreme Court.

And that political capital that the hypothetical city leader had built up with the members of the unruly hypothetical council?  Well, it’s all hypothetical now.

Whether our heritage was comprised of Native Americans, Caucasians in the early days of America’s recorded history, Africans in the late 18^th century and beyond, Asians during the beginning of the Industrial Age, Irish during the great Potato Famine, Italians, Germans, Cubans, or Vietnamese in the mid-70s—we are all either immigrants or descendants of immigrants.

In 1630, Puritan John Winthrop preached a sermon to the Massachusetts Bay Colony entitled “A Model of Christian Charity.” In that sermon he indicated that their new community would be a “city upon a hill,” and would be watched by the world. 

Three hundred fifty years later, this phrase would be often echoed by the late President Ronald Reagan in his descriptions of America as “the shining city on the hill” for the rest of the world. 

The country will watch our actions here in Springfield.  Will Springfield shine or will the tarnish spread?

In 1986, the Immigration Service—admitting 25 years ago that the federal government was not doing its job—used its governmental powers to deputize every hiring individual in the United States with the requirement that employers have employees complete the I-9 forms and then verify forms of identification. 

As a Human Resource professional, I can testify to the amount of time required to comply with this law and labor costs are one of a company’s largest expense items.  In many cases, the indirect costs (which include benefits, payroll taxes, and legal compliance efforts) will reach 40% of direct payroll, if not higher.

A government requiring private enterprises to engage in surveillance and verification activities that are not part of the business’ core mission is, in essence, imposing a tax on those enterprises.  This petition forcing employers to utilize the E-verify system will require additional labor time for all businesses and, in many cases, require additional capital expenses for some of our smallest and most fragile businesses.

Yet, contrary to statements in their press release, the Minutemen appear very willing to impose this hidden tax on businesses—in the midst of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. 

Those of you who follow on FaceBook may remember a comment I posted last week about being startled when the teller at my credit union drive-through reminded me that it was my wife’s birthday. 

While I know they were trying to do the “customer service” thing, most of the comments I’ve received from folks are along the lines of “Wow, that’s a bit big-brotherish!”

Well, the surprises just keep on rolling in.  Cindy and I were going to breakfast Saturday morning and happened to drive by the credit union building. It had completely new signage on the building and out in front.  We wondered if this branch had been sold since the credit union had recently built a huge monument to itself over at Sunset and Kansas Expressway.

Turns out that—according to the postcard that came in the mail Saturday afternoon, the Postal Federal Credit Union is now—are you ready?—sitting down?—BluCurrent!!

Yep, BluCurrent.  Apparently all one word with a capital letter in the middle.

What’s even more interesting is that the new logo—a series of rounded-corner rectangles fading off into some invisible horizon—are orange and green!! So, why would an entity named BluCurrent have an orange and green logo?

I know there’s a trend to simplify (and sometimes obscure) names.  And the first name of this business was pretty unwieldy:  The Postal and Federal Employees’ Credit Union. Try writing that one on the front of a check!  It then became The Postal Federal Credit Union back when all the financial institutions were being deregulated and membership requirements got expanded basically anyone who lived in southwest Missouri.

BluCurrent.  BluCurrent? Why not green?  At least the color green has some connotation with money.  And that’s what credit unions do, isn’t it?  Help people save money and make loans to members?

Oh, yeah.  BluCurrent.  Doesn’t it give you an image of some sort of electrical utility?  Maybe, if you don’t make your loan payment, they’ll zap you.  I wouldn’t think twice about seeing a BluCurrent electrical truck in the neighborhood, but I would sort of wonder about an entity that is trying to hide what it does.

And let’s talk spelling and pronunciation for a moment.  Blu.  Since it’s not spelled with the conventional “e” on the end, do we pronounce it blu as in “bluh” with a short u?  Guess the Twitter norm of reducing everything to its lowest common denominator (and spelling) has garnered the attention of the design agencies. At least their younger employees (those who grew up gaming and not reading) don’t have to worry anymore about spelling.  We’ll just create a new word.

Just call me nonplussed. Or in the trends of the day,  non+’ed !!

     Probably the most emotional and divisive issue that I have seen in my time on City Council is on the agenda for Monday evening.  The petition circulated by the Ozarks Minutemen was certified by the City Clerk as having enough valid signatures and is up for the first reading.  

     This petition mandates that all businesses within the city limits of Springfield utilize the federally-provided “e-Verify” system to determine work eligibility and to screen out undocumented workers. The Minutemen say it’s a free service that simply ensures that federal law is being followed by businesses in Springfield.

     Folks all over town have been gearing up and planning their strategies for the evening.  We anticipate that there will be many, many speakers signing up for their opportunity to speak on the issue.  Some will speak passionately and eloquently; others emotionally; still others will be nervous, but will get through their allotted time.  There will be accusations that this petition is racist in nature, that it targets Hispanics and Latinos. The Minutemen will argue that everyone is checked through the system and therefore it’s non-discriminatory. Business groups will state that this will put an extra burden on commercial enterprises, especially small businesses, and will require much more administrative time, cost for equipment, and broadband access for businesses currently not “wired.”  And other speakers will lament the further damage to race relations in Springfield that they see this petition causing.

     Unfortunately, they will all be wasting their collective breath.

     If you look at the way the Springfield Charter is written, with a petition initiated by citizens, City Council only has two options:  a) it can immediately accept the language in the petition as law or b) it can vote to place the issue on the next regularly-scheduled election.  Also, per the Charter, City Council cannot amend the petition language in any way.  And finally, if City Council does not perform either a) or b) above, the petition language automatically becomes law in 30 days.

     Even though I suspect most of the speakers will be addressing the content of the petition, City Council—while there may be comments from individual members—is only allowed two choices—pass it as law or put it on the next ballot.  Considering the content, modifying the content, eliminating parts of the content, adding content—these are not options available to Council during this process of first reading, second reading, and vote.

     The Mayor, in order to accommodate the large number of speakers anticipated, is asking City Council to suspend our normal rules of 5 minutes per person and use a three minute time limit for comments and 2 minute time limit for Council questions. I would not have an issue with this.  I have noticed over the years that, with five minutes, many times a person will start repeating himself or herself needlessly.

     One reason for the Mayor’s request is to help the petition proceedings move along. The other is that this issue is not the only thing on the agenda.  He is trying to keep folks from having to sit through a five- or six-hour meeting, waiting for their chance to speak.