Since the City does not govern its own elections, same as police department, what is the purpose of contacting the mayor and aldermen about the Diebold contract?

Of course, election boards in Kansas City, Jefferson County, and St. Charles County also selected Diebold.

Maybe these guys just don't like Ed Martin?

Neither Jefferson nor St. Charles County have an election board appointed by the governor. The election authority in Jefferson is an elected County Clerk. St. Charles has an elected Election Director. Both have their budgets set by an elected county commission/council. That is the way elections are managed in most Missouri counties.

Since Ed wants the City to get out of the airport, arts and tourism business (see this week's ACC), I would imagine his Fan Club is overwhelmed with membership applications right now, mostly from officials of cities competing with us for visitor dollars.

Diverting arts and tourism public funding to fight the clap is an interesting idea if you ignore the part about public funding for RAC and CVC coming from earmarked city-county motel-hotel tax approved by voters.

Good correction. Thanks.

Make that "election authorities in St. Louis, Kansas City, Jeff Co, and St. Charles . . ."

Outside KC, the rest of Jackson County is under a different governor appointed election board. Anyone know who got their contract?

The KC Star reported in November that Jackson County and KC were "coordinating" their purchases -- whatever that means.

Howard, speaking as public officials when the voting rights of their constitutents are threatened is well within the abilities of the mayor and aldermen. The voting system decision provides an obvious opportunity to demonstrate how the current state-level system provides poor representation and recourse for St. Louis citizens. We St. Louis citizens deserve assurances about fairness in the basic machinery of democratic government.

Update: KC Star reported two weeks ago that KC and Jackson County selected different systems. Jackson County selected ESS. (Clay and Platt -- according to the same story -- selected Diebold.)

publiceye, "Maybe these guys just don't like Ed Martin?" is wrong in my case. I barely know who he is, and he has been nice in correspondence with me. Diebold, with its record of fraud and corruption, is the problem.

Fair enough. Ed Martin isn't your issue.

Still, "record of fraud and corruption" may be overstating accusations contained in some shareholder lawsuits by idiots who bought stock in company. Lawsuits make all kinds of boilerplate claims.

Would you have preferred one of the other three companies on the Election Board's short list? If so, which one? why? etc.

"Still, 'record of fraud and corruption' may be overstating accusations contained in some shareholder lawsuits by idiots who bought stock in company. Lawsuits make all kinds of boilerplate claims."

There are plenty of problems with this company besides the lawsuits, and these independent findings are hardly difficult to find. Why are you focused on the lawsuit?

ESS was headed by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Diebold's CEO just resigned under a cloud. Sequoia reportedly had staffing problems. I am new to the workings of the St. Louis Board, but it appears that they faced a stacked deck. I do not know which was the least bad of three very problematic alternatives.

You posed a closed question to an open problem, though, in limiting it to three companies. Your approach predictably leads to some problems. Of course, the Board of Elections faced a similarly problematic situation. I initially thought the Board of Elections had made an awful choice because Diebold has such a bad record. It turns out that HAVA forced this decision and the voting machine companies are all rife with problems.

Conducting open, fair elections is so central to our society that we must be able to do better.

Public Eye, thanks for the information.

Michael M, it does not appear to me that contacting the mayor and aldermen about the single issue of the voting machine contract is efficacious. The election board has a clock ticking for the federal money. The mayor and aldermen have no legal authority to pull the plug on the deal. Such contact is a distraction from the bigger issue, the lack of local management, local accountability.

It would be wiser to look to the future. Who bears the burden for election problems? It will be, as before, the City's image (recall Kit Bond's previous tantrum) and the mayor on the hot seat, not the governor, not the election board, not the lege for retaining this absurd structure where we pay for a service that we have no control over.

Time today would be better spent contacting your state rep and state senator, and candidates for same, and governor, potential candidates for same, urging them to get the job done in the matter of returning control of elections to the local level accountable to voters.

To the end of securing change, it would make sense to also contact the mayor and aldermen to support same, adopt an aldermanic resolution and make the issue a part of the mayor's lege agenda.

This reminds me of the Police Civilian Review Board issue. It, also, is a distraction from the bigger issue of returning local control over our police department.

Bringing this back to Ed Martin (though not likely in the way PE hinted), would the City be willing to give up control of Lambert, if such offering would build state legislative support for City control of BOE and SLMPD?

IOW: Would the City be willing to give up control of airport revenue and assets in order to improve its chances of gaining control over election and public safety expenses?

Yes, IOW is that a fair tradeoff?

Even though governors (Republican and Democrat alike) maintain partisan control of bipartisan election boards by appointing at least one "sham" member of the opposition party to the board, the semblance of bipartisan control nevertheless provides more checks and balances to election administration than the unchecked party-in-power control that would result from "local control" over the Board of Elections. Such "local control" would only benefit those who are in a position to manipulate and abuse the system.

If city officials seriously considered surrendering airport revenue and assets needed to serve the city's financial needs in exchange for control of election administration, their motives would be extremely suspect. And no, the ends do NOT justify the means.

Trade an asset for a political promise to give us careful consideration. LOL.

I can see it now. We get rid of Lambert but they need more incentive, maybe our share of gas tax funding for road/bridge, votes to mandate teaching creationism, public funding of parochial schools, our virgin sons and daughters, it'll never end.

Instead, let's promise to give careful consideration to unloading Lambert after we get control over our own elections and police.

Even better, how about the legislature that so benevolently gave us partial home rule, fork over the rest of it.

Ideally, the state should fork over full home rule as matter of equity. But in reality, there is little protection requiring states to treat their political subdivisions equally.

Lambert is our Ace of Spades, but of course we should only play that card, if we're going to win at the table. In order to not be gambling then, this complex deal requires mutual contingencies.

Maybe write all parts into one bill. As in sausage making, other legislation certainly has had more strange combinations. But before going to the greater St. Louis delegation, Slay and Dooley would obviously need to agree first.

If Lambert is "the ace of spades" in our hand, why not play it to win something important: City/County merger, inclusion of the City as a county municipality, or a reduction in the number of county municipalities to make the county into a better City partner?

Brian suggests writing all parts into one bill.

Let us say for the moment that KC has no interest in securing control over its police department and KC and Clay, Jackson, Platte, St. Louis Counties have no interest in securing control over their elections.

Let us say for the moment that Article III, Section 23, Mo Constitution (No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title...) is not going to be a problem.

"An Act relating to the City of St. Louis" would appear to have the bill title vagueness of "An Act relating to economic development" and be unconstitutional. "An Act relating to the Police Department and Board of Election Commissioners of the City of St. Louis" would appear to cover two very different subjects and be unconstitutional.

But let us say that I am wrong and you are able to pull off a single gillion page bill overhauling both Chapters 84 and 115 Missouri Statutes. How do you propose including Lambert in the bill? It is true that airport ownership by cities and counties are enabled by Missouri statute. Lambert, however, is created and governed by Chapter 18 St. Louis City Revised Codes. Are you suggesting that the State of Missouri, via Lege, can take Lambert from the City by eminent domain?

Public Eye suggests keeping the matter local and swapping control of the airport for what he considers something more important. While Lambert would be a local legislative matter, the something more important would require approval by voters of multi political subdivisions. Which comes first, chicken or egg? Does the City give up control of Lambert in hopes the voters of the City and County agree to a merger, or hopes the voters of City and County agree to the City's annexation into County, or in hopes that the voters of many municipalities in the County will merge? Or is it the other way around?

Also, I do not think that the City giving up Lambert for reduced number of County municipalities would be seen by many City residents as a good deal for them. The City bribing County municipalities to become more efficient seems more than a little odd. Trying to walk in the shoes of a County resident for a moment, I do not think that many County residents really care that much about who controls Lambert, let alone think the City relinquishing control of the airport is a fair swap for their giving up their municipality identities.

Just as good a time as any, correction to Ed's last column in ACC, the City's airport employees are civil service, not patronage.

After the outcry against past rumblings of selling off the City Water Division, I would think publiceye would be quite cautious about any public talk or thoughts of selling off the Airport.

Since both are "Enterprise" Funds, the money from them isn't supposed to be mixed with daily city operations. However, I do think the idea of contracting with private vendors for some components of airport operations is a good idea. In fact, I think they already do that, or perhaps Kevin Dolille is moving in that direction.

But Howard is correct - Airport employees are civil service, albeit pretty much with their own separate sets of job classifications and slightly different pay scales.

If the City would become another muny within the County, wouldn't all legislation saying "a city not within a county" then be nullified?

With re-entry, our BOE would likely be merged with the County's. I'm not sure then if the City would then need to develop townships, and doubt that ward committees and the central committee would support such system.

Maybe the new larger County could reorganize its party system around Council districts, since townships aren't reapportioned by population. Of course, the seven County Council districts would need to be reapportioned. However, since the City equals just under two of seven districts, a district-based system with one mostly in North City and one mostly in South City could cause even a greater schism in City politics then there is now.

And despite re-entry, our police could remain a municipal force, unless truly becoming metropolitan, merging with County police. Merging with County police might also help nullify state control.

All "city not within a county" statutes would not be nullified if the City were annexed into St. Louis County. Otherwise, annexation would result in the City disappearing as both a city and a county.

The BOE would not be merged with the County Council under annexation. The BOE would remain a city council.

Section 84.010 RSMo is very specific about city ordinances not conflicting with powers of Police Board.

Howard, BOE meant Board of Elections. I know that the Board of Aldermen could still act as a city council. I suggested County Council districts as a compromise for merging election systems with the County, since they use unapportioned townships, unlike our ward-based system.

BOE not BOA. OK. But not much difference. City's annexation into St. Louis County would not mean merger of City Election Board with County Election Board. Lege would have to do it. Unlikely given that Jackson County and Kansas City each still have a Governor appointed Board of Elections. Merging a Governor appointed board with a Governor appointed board does not further the goal of local control over elections.

The redistricted townships for St. Louis County are found at
co.st-louis.mo.us/elections/DISTMAPS.html

Each (or most) of the cities in St. Louis County have apportioned districts or wards for purposes of electing their city councils or board of aldermen. Wards in the City serve both municipal and county functions.