The Distler Dilemma

 By now most folks in Shawnee are aware that our mayor, Michelle Distler has been approved for a diversion program after being charged with felony perjury.

In an article published February 4, 2021 in the Kansas City Star (and a similar one in the Shawnee Mission Post), Distler's lawyer, Robin Fowler is quoted as saying:

"She looks forward to moving on with her life in a constructive way, and plans to do her part to try and make her community a better place to live."  He is also quoted as saying "She also wishes to express her heartfelt apology to anyone impacted by these events."

OK, let's take the second part of the above first.  A "heartfelt apology"?  Coming from a paid mouthpiece (old east coast term).  IMHO she needs to go on the record, at a council meeting with a three way apology.  First to me, for using my name because she was "afraid of political repercussions" if she had used her own name.  Secondly, to the city council itself, because as mayor she sits as the head of the governing body.  And thirdly, and most importantly, to the citizens of Shawnee for actions that were a disgrace to the city and an insult to all those who voted and worked the streets for her.

Now as far as making the community a better place to live.  She needs to stop trying to be friends with everybody and start to become a real leader.  And that means being able to make decisions rather than excuses for not making them.  I supported her for many years and actually thought that because she was such a cheerleader for the city that she would become a good leader.

Wow, was I mistaken.  It really hit home with the Community Center project which fortunately got defeated 72%-28%.  She was asked where she stood, even at one of her Thursday coffee sessions.  She wouldn't say.  All she would say is that it was on the ballot and the citizens would choose.  That is not leadership.  Folks wanted to know where she stood.  She didn't want to alienate anybody so she took no stand.  She wouldn't endorse candidates for state rep and/or state senate because they were running as "party partisans" and the mayor in Shawnee is "non-partisan".  Horse nonsense.  The mayor has an obligation to endorse and support folks for state office that he/she feels can best represent Shawnee at the state level.  And even gubernatorial, Congressional and US Senate

Then we come to the city council president selection.  The council was tied 4-4.  She didn't want to break the tie because "it would make the council appear even more divisive".  Horse nonsense, in a situation like this it is incumbent upon the mayor to voice their opinion as to who they think would be best qualified to assume the mayor's seat if needed.

Her unwillingness to make decisions or take sides is not leadership.  It's a person who thinks by straddling a fence they can make everybody happy.  Ain't gonna happen.  A leader has to make decisions........."ya can make some of the people happy all the time, all of the people happy some of the time but ya can't make all of the people happy all the time"  She had an opportunity to really take Shawnee forward, especially as the first female elected mayor in this city.  She blew it.

Now as a side note, the Shawnee Mission Post has published the emails that Distler was complaining about.  First, the chain was started by a non elected individual, who included five elected officials in the chain.  The topic was not about how to proceed or vote on an item coming up but rather a discussion of something that had already happened.  One of the two council members who responded was explaining what had happened.  The other one asked that they be removed from that mailing list.  I'm no legal eagle, but I believe that discussing something that has happened as opposed to planning on how to act on an upcoming item is not, IMHO a KOMA violation.

Side bar:  In a previous article in the KC Star former city council member Stephanie Meyer was quoted as saying she thought the emails should still be investigated as possible KOMA violations.  All she has to do is download them from the Shawnee Mission Post web site and then attach them to an on line complaint form (being sure to use her real name).  Keep in mind though, my comments in the preceding paragraph.  

Edited 2/17/21 for typos

Brouhaha Brewing with the City Manager

Looks like we have a major brouhaha going with the city manager.

Let's recap for a second. In June I again brought forth the idea of banning cell phones/texting while driving at a city council meeting. A few days after the meeting I spoke with the mayor and he agreed that getting the info from other cities as to how it works for them could be useful. He advised me to contact my council rep and have the rep request the item for a committee meeting.

Michelle Distler did this on 6/24/09 with an email to the city manager:

I received a call from Ray in regards to the Cell Phone Ban. He mentioned he had spoken to Jeff and that Jeff was interested in seeing what other cities have done and how it is working for them. Jeff advised Ray to speak to me and have me ask to have this item put on a committee. I told Ray it probably would not be until after budget and he was fine with that. So I am making a request for this item to be put on a committee meeting. Thank you. Michelle

Since over the summer the budget did have priority the item came up at the F & A committee meeting on 10/6/09. As pointed out in the blog entry below of Sat, 10/10/09, the primary question was never answered nor even addressed. During the meeting Ms Distler asked if I could supply a list of some of the cities and she would pass that on so we could get the info as originally requested. On 10/9/09 Ms distler sent the city manager an email which included a list of cities that I had sent to her.

Carol,
Due to the fact the original request was not fulfilled, we would like to see this come back to committee advising as the email below requested that we see what other cities have done and how it is working for them. By presenting that no other Johnson County cities are looking into this does not address the request that was made. Ray has supplied cities that have enacted a ban and their population size.
Thank you.
Michelle
(list of cities was included)

On 10/17/09 (8 days after the last email, I inquired of Ms Distler if the city manager had responded.

On 10/19/09 the city manager finally responded:

Here's my dilemma - we have already given two presentations on this topic. I apologize if the second one wasn't exactly what was requested. I asked our folks to give an update and I must not have sent the specific email to them as they prepared. My fault. It is my sense that there is not majority support to move forward on anything at this time related to this issue. We have limited staff and limited money - 22 vacancies - 7.5% of our work force. I have projects that staff was directed to look into as part of our budget approval that we have slated out on Committee meetings clear til April 2010 (much more than 4 months) - because we don't have the depth of staff to get to them any sooner. I have a part time intern who is preparing our whole solid waste/recycling plan. This morning I am attending a meeting on State legislative issues because I have no one else to send, and we won't have time to even prepare a legislative program (at least not a good one - I'd like to do something), let alone monitor the session the way we should. These are just a few examples to make my point which is that I really struggle with asking anyone on my staff to take 10 to 12 hours of their time to research an issue at the request of one citizen (one very important citizen of course!) on an issue that there is not a majority support to move forward on at all. Does that make sense? If someone sees it differently, let me know, but I am struggling to find a way to justify it..... Carol

Most of the above correspondence between the council rep and the city manager had the mayor, the assistant city manager and me as cc.

On 10/20/09 I reponded to the city manager's email:

Mornin' folks,

If someone sees it differently let you know? OK.

I am confused, concerned, aggravated, and various other states of being.

To say "I apologize if the second one wasn't exactly what was requested. I asked our folks to give an update and I must not have sent the specific email to them as they prepared. My fault." is an understatement. It came nowhere close to answering the question.
Now, let's look at this: "on an issue that there is not a majority support to move forward on at all" We are not talking, at this time about moving forward on anything. We were talking about obtaining information as to how other cities were handling it. Again, this is information gathering. I remember recently when the President of the Council (Dawn Kuhn) publicly excoriated a fellow council member (Kevin Straub) for that member's stand on the trash issue without having all of the information.

I would like to know specifically which members of the council are against obtaining the information as to how other cities are handling this. Are we afraid of what the information would show? That it could be enfoced? That other problems/violations have been reduced? And yes, as a side benefit, people are paying for being stupid and putting other folks' lives and property in jeopardy. Remember, this IS a public safety issue. And, quite literally, a life and death one.

Now let's look at this: "I really struggle with asking anyone on my staff to take 10 to 12 hours of their time to research an issue" Well, since you assumed responsibility for failing to pass on the question properly, maybe then you could do the research.

Last but not least. Two things stand out as very annoying. Why did it take 10 days (and one reminder) before a council member received a response from the city manager? In the business world that would be totally unacceptable. Especially since the city manger in this government model reports to the members of the council. A response in today's era would be 24-48 hours. Even if it wasn't a total answer, an interim or acknowledgment reply would be the norm. I was curious as to what would happen if a department head failed to respond to the city manager in 10 days. Again, even if it is only an interim or acknowledgment reply. Also, what job in the business world can a person do wrong and then say they are not going to do it over?
Personally I think the original question still needs to be answered. Believe that Chicago, the cities in New Mexico and Brooklyn, OH can probably give a good history.
Ray

As of today I have not received a reply to my email.

I was going to take a poll at the 10/26/09 council meeting to see exactly which council members are against getting the info (not enacting an ordinance, just getting the info). Unfortunately that meeting has been cancelled since there were not enough items for the agenda.

SIDEBAR:

It still bothers me that it took the city manager 10 days to reply to a member of the council. And then only after a reminder. Maybe there is some truth to another council member's public statements about selective members of the council getting speedy replies. This was brought out by another member of the community at the franchise fee meeting.

Also, anyone who works in the private sector who did not provide a report that was asked for by their superiors would be resoundingly reprimanded, especially if they refused to do it over. Do some folks not realize that in a council/manager form of government the council is in charge, not the manager? Have we a case of role reversal here?

Oh, I do not, as stated by the city manager consider myself a very important citizen. All citizens of Shawnee are important.

BTW, it took me less than 45 minutes to compile a list of cities that have ordinances. A short email (or phone call) by the city manager or staff to their counterparts would get the info. Is the 10-12 hours mentioned by the city manager realistic?

If anyone has any comments they'd like to make about this blog entry feel free to post them at http://shawneeray.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=blog&action=display&thread=26

The Distler Dilemma, Part 2

 I'd like to direct you to my post, on this blog on February 16, 2021 by clicking here

It has now been over three months since that posting, and Mayor Distler has still not responded by apologizing as requested.  She owes three apologies.  One to me personally, one to the council and one to the people of Shawnee.  The perfunctory apology by her paid mouthpiece in the local media is, IMHO a non-apology.

There is an agenda item at city council meetings called "Mayor's Items".  She needs to get up at a council meeting and issue those apologies.  Her failure to do so would, IMHO be indicative of someone who is morally and ethically corrupt.  Or am I expecting too much from a person who would file a complaint with the State of Kansas posing as someone else?

Madam Mayor, do the right thing, apologize.

Fourth Ward is a Star in The Star

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, common sense. What a breath of fresh air this is, especially in view of the idiocy perpetrated last week.

Michelle Distler, a Fourth Ward Councilperson from Shawnee had her views of smoking bans published in the Kansas City Star on 4/30/07. The link is
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/88424.html

Also, this commentary originally appeared in the Shawnee/Lenexa Sun on 4/26/07. At least we still have freedom of speech.

Sometimes those links don't work, so I'll quote the article here:

AS I SEE IT City bans deny people their constitutional rights
By MICHELLE R. DISTLER

Special to The Star

As an asthmatic, I initially thought smoking bans were a good idea. I still think they are, but not one that the government should implement. It is a decision that is best left to the individual owners and their customers through the power of the purse.

Upon further thought on the matter, I remembered taking my oath of office and swearing to uphold the Constitution. Although there is nothing stated specifically to the rights of smokers or nonsmokers, the Constitution does speak directly to individual liberties and private property rights. I do not want to open Pandora’s Box and give the government undue power and control over our lives.

Communities across the country are wrestling with the dilemma of whether to enforce smoking bans, and unfortunately we’re quickly losing sight of our obligation as a society to protect civil rights in the process.

The constitutional purpose of our government is to promote commerce, build roads, protect us from foreign invasion and protect individual rights. This includes property rights. Any act to the contrary is an outright violation of the Constitution. A smoking ban is a violation of property rights, period.

The Constitution was written in such a manner to specifically limit the power and scope of government to preserve our individual rights — rights that are being eroded daily with a variety of seemingly small encroachments, such as the smoking ban.

Just as eminent domain started as a good idea and a means to acquire private land for the public good, it has become extremely problematic when untrustworthy government officials and self-serving developers define what is in the public’s best interest. Tax increment financing also began as an effective means to restore blighted areas until insiders began using it to increase their personal profits.

Everyone has the freedom of choice to go into any building where people are allowed to smoke or not smoke. But no one has the inalienable right to go into a privately owned business and demand that it be smoke-free or demand that a smoke-free building allow smoking.
No one should have the right to use government to force an owner to make his property smoke-free. In doing so, all our rights become easier targets for anyone disagreeing with, or who is offended by, the practice of our personal freedoms.

In the long run, this is far more dangerous than secondhand smoke ever could be.
Supply and demand drives free enterprise, and I think the best way to implement a smoking ban is to support those establishments that cater best to your desires. I think we must remember that whether as employees or patrons to businesses, we are the "guests" of the property owners.

My concern is for the property rights of all Shawnee residents and business owners.
Michelle R. Distler serves on the Shawnee City Council.

The Distler Dilemma - Part 3

 Well it looks like our illustrious mayor still has not apologized publicly for her illegal, immoral and unethical actions.

For those who need some background you can read the info at:

this posting from 2/16/2021  and,

this posting from 5/19/2021 

If you want to read a copy of the affidavit that the JoCo DA's office used to obtain the arrest warrant you can do so by clicking here for the link.   Also, near the end of the affidavit what is really interesting are the timeline discrepancies. Her comments just did not gel with what took place.

There are also numerous items about the situation on various local web sites to include the KC Star, KCTV, The Shawnee Mission Post, just to name a few.  And various news outlets in other states.

Madam Mayor, this is not going to go away.  Even if you successfully complete your diversion program and the county then drops the charges, your actions still happened.

Yes Madam Mayor, you still owe public apologies to me, the governing body and most importantly the people of Shawnee.  Filing a complaint with the attorney general's office is the right of every citizen.  Filing a complaint using someone else's name because you lack the intestinal fortitude to stand by your actions is outrageous, and, as we have all found out, illegal.

Do the right and honorable thing.  Stand up during a council meeting during "Mayor's Items" and issue those apologies.