Al Franken: God Spoke, Opening in St. Louis October 27th at the Chase

If I’ve never said it before, I’m a big fan of Al Franken. He tells is like he sees it and is not afraid to call a liar a liar. I met Franken many years ago at a book reading and signing at the former Library Ltd in Clayton. What a funny guy. I really enjoyed the bits he did on the Comedy channel during a couple of campaigns where he and Arianna Huffington were in a bed together doing election commentary. Classic stuff! Somehow I missed Arianna Huffington switching from being conservative to more moderate/liberal, see HuffingtonPost.com.

But, back to Al Franken…

He has a new grassroots movie out and because I was offered a couple of free tickets to the opening on the 27th, I agreed to pass along information about the film. Yes, for Al Franken I can be bought off with two movie passes. Here is the press release:

AL FRANKEN: GOD SPOKE opening in St Louis on Oct. 27th at the Chase Park Plaza Cinemas. <www.chase.stlouiscinemas.com>
“Hilarious!” Salon.com ** “Smartly Satirical.” Variety ** “Fair and Balanced!” Minneapolis Star Tribune **

The makers of “The War Room” have made a hilarious new documentary “Al Franken: God Spoke.” From his USO tour in Iraq, to the studios of liberal radio network Air America and on the campaign trail, filmmakers Nick Doob and Chris Hegedus are granted entre to one of the most effective political satirists of our time. Franken fearlessly confronts pundits and politicians, blurring the boundaries between political satire and impassioned citizenry. Featuring a host of beltway big mouths including Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Gore, John Kerry, Robert Kennedy Jr., Sean Hannity, William Safire, Karen Hughes and Henry Kissinger, the film is a look behind the front lines of the media wars during the most contentious election in recent history. But ultimately, the film is a personal drama of transformation, as Al Franken leaves his comedy days behind and moves from his seat in the sidelines to become a contender inside the political ring.

FOR MORE ON THE FILM AND A COMPLETE LIST OF CITIES: www.godspokefilm.com

The showtime is not yet set for next Friday. Check the Chase website for the exact time.

Copia’s Valet vs. St. Louis Fire Department

Sometimes I have really good timing. Tonight was one of those times. However, I didn’t have my camera with me to capture the event. It just so happened I was walking back to my car (at 14th & Washington) after having dinner at 10th Street Italian (between Washington & St. Charles). Anyway, I was walking along cursing myself for not having my camera with me. I pass by Copia and see two cars running, lights on and not a person in sight. No valet, no customer. Just a Lexus and Saab running. I keep walking, debating if my camera phone is worthwhile but I decide to let it go. As I get to the corner at Tucker I look back and see a Fire Department SUV has pulled up in front of Copia. After crossing the Tucker I see it has it’s lights on.

Curious and heading to City Grocers anyway, I drove past Copia to see if I could figure out the problem. First, a bit of background. In the last couple of weeks, since my popular video has been out, Copia’s valets have been parking cars on the street rather than leaving all the space empty. It is a start. While I’d prefer to have most of the spaces open for the public I’d rather see them park cars there than leave the space looking desolate. But it looks as though they parked one vehicle where they should not — directly in a no-parking zone in front of a fire hydrant, directly in front of the restaurant. I was able to go around the block and come back on Washington as the valet finally got the keys for the vehicle (an SUV of course) as he moved it from the spot. For a good 5-10 minutes Copia had a fire vehicle in front of their place with the lights flashing, I’m sure the patrons were wondering what was going on. Just another day with Copia and valet parking….

Reed Amends January 2006 Campaign Finance Report

It seems the Reed campaign received $525 less in the fourth calendar quarter of 2005 than previously reported, they filed an amended report on 9/6/2006 (see PDF) with the Missouri Ethics Commission. However, subsequent reports from April and July have not yet been amended to reflect the change in totals for receipts and cash on hand. Reed’s July report indicated a cash on hand balance of only $356.71 but if we adjust the numbers to reflect the reduced receipts, that would make a deficit of -$168.29. This is after a $5,000 loan to the campaign treasury.

In comparing the original and amended reports the difference is relative to three contributors:

• Goodco, LLC located at 1915 Park was originally reported to have given $100 but it was amended to $25.

• L. James Willmore, MD of 2327 Albion Place was originally reported to have given $300 but it was amended to $25.

• SAG Properties, LLC of 4515 Maryland Ave was originally reported to have given $300 but it was amended to $125.

The differences total the $525 adjustment to the January 2006 quarterly report which covered the forth quarter of 2005. Campaigns do make mistakes and thus require amendments now and then. But, subsequent reports have not yet been amended to reflect the adjustments to the total receipts for the campaign to date and cash on hand.

Urban Economic Development: A Mid-Term Review

As many of you know, I returned to college this semester — working toward a Masters in Urban Planning and Real Estate Development at Saint Louis University. Wednesday I have my first mid-term exam in over 15 years. Needless to say I was concerned about studying and such. But in the last two years I have found I learn well as I research and write posts for Urban Review. Seeing as how that was a winning strategy, I decided to write up my study notes as a blog post. The notes follow the order of in-class topics and of the mid-term outline issued by our instructor, Allen Tomey.

The initial part of the class focused on some introduction to urban economics and then progressed to the first seven chapters of Approaches to Economic Development: Readings from Economic Development Quarterly, edited by John P. Blair and Laura A. Reese (hereafter referred to as Blair & Reese). I’m guessing many of you don’t subscribe to Economic Development Quarterly and I can’t say that I blame you. Some authors did a nice job getting to their point and others belabored statistics and such to the point you didn’t get their point until you’ve read the chapter 3 times and then took good notes in class.

This review is in no way a substitute for actually taking the class. I hope review this may prompt some of you to consider joining the program at SLU, if only for a class or two. I’ve been working on this for days and the test is this afternoon. Note: some chapters and areas get more attention because those were stressed more heavily than others.

UPDATE 10/18/06 @2:15pm. I’ve pulled the bulk of this post because I am not sure if presenting such notes presents any sort of ethical problem. Students are encouraged to form study groups and share information prior to the test. I’m not sure if the university policy has considered technology and the sharing of detailed notes via the web and the implications for future students. I will confer with my professor, department chair and the SLU handbook to verify. If I can, I will repost this information as soon as possible.

Quarter of Board of Aldermen Have Not Filed Required Campaign Reports

A full 25% of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen have not filed required campaign finance reports with the Missouri Ethics Commission, as of 10:45am today. I double checked the seven that have not filed and the Missouri Ethics Commission does not show any reports received but not yet scanned. The reports were due October 15th which translates to October 16th since the 15th was on a Sunday.

The following are the aldermen that have not filed the required reports, all are Democrats (that is a joke, btw, since we only have one Republican elected to office in the City of St. Louis):

•Charles Quincy Troupe — 1st Ward
•April Ford-Griffin — 5th Ward
•Lewis Reed — 6th Ward (Reed has two committees at this point – one for alderman and one for president of the board, neither committee has filed the required reports)
•Jennifer Florida — 15th Ward
•Terry Kennedy — 18th Ward (Kennedy is up for re-election in 2007)
•Frank Williamson — 26th Ward (Wiliamson is up for re-election in 2007)
•Lyda Krewson — 28th Ward (Krewson is up for re-election in 2007)

More to follow in the next week, after I’ve had a chance to download and review all the reports that have been filed up to that point.

Related prior post: July 27 — A detailed look at Campaign Finance Reports.

UPDATE 10/18/06 @ Noon:

Ald. Lyda Krewson emailed me to indicate they mailed their reports on 10/13. Krewson also indicated she talked with the folks in Jeff City that said they just received some mail this morning postmarked 10/10 & 10/111 (and presumably Krewson’s dated 10/13?). This is somewhat different than Publiceye’s assertion that the Missouri Ethics Commission is behind on opening mail. I’m much more likely to believe that the US Postal Service is slow. Krewson indicates she will send future reports via FedEx to avoid this anxiety over timeliness.

Electronic filing is an option that aldermen should consider. I will check back to the state site throughout the afternoon to see if new reports for these seven have been received today. Part of the problem we have, as the public, is knowing if a report was postmarked on time or not. If the Missouri Ethics is backed up they will indicate a report has been received but not yet scanned — and here they will indicate the postmark. Most often I find they go right to being a scanned report with only the date it was received by the office and the date scanned — the same day. So, all seven reports may arrive today and be scanned today but because of their reporting system I will be unable to distinguish, online, between those that were mailed on or before the 14th and those that may have been mailed or send via overnight after the deadline.

UPDATE 10/18/06 @ 2pm:

The Missouri Ethics Commission does not show any changes for the above seven. The potential existed for them to have received a report but not yet scanned it into their system for public consumption but none of these where so marked.

UPDATE 10/18/06 @ 8:55pm:

At 4pm this afternoon two reports were indicated as having been received but not yet scanned: one was for Ald. Lyda Krewson and the other for Ald. Lewis Reed’s committee running for the President of the Board of Aldermen. Both show as being postmarked on Monday, October 16, 2006. Per the Missouri Ethics Commission, these are technically late. At 8:15pm I check all seven again just to see if any additional changes had been made after 4pm. The other five remain unchanged but now the two reports, one from Krewson and one from Reed, are scanned and available for review. At the moment both are still showing in the received but not yet scanned section as well along with the postmark date of 10/16/06 (I have saved both pages as PDF files and may post if necessary).

The Missouri Ethics Commission website does not yet show a report for the aldermanic committee for Lewis Reed which remains an active and open account. It should probably be converted to a debt account, if possible. Ald. Krewson’s report is of course quite orderly and includes a cover letter dated 10/12/2006. This date would collaborate her contention that it was mailed the following day, on the 13th which would make it a timely filing. Still the Missouri Ethics Commission says it was not postmarked until the 16th, making it a late filing.

We’ve got a couple of issues at play here. First, some aldermen are habitually late, sometimes 2-3 weeks. That is quite a different issue than mailing it at a slow post office or even on the actual due date rather than prior to the due date as required. Habitually late and rarely late is the separator here. Krewson is consistently ontime, at least back through 2004. Reed, on the other hand, is either on time or really really late.

But the big issue is the information the Missouri Ethics Commission provides, or more accurately, doesn’t provide. Once a report is filed we know the date is was received and the date it was scanned. Almost always these are the same date. What is missing is the piece of information that determines whether a filed report is timely or not — the postmark date. How is it this information is not part of their reporting? If you agree this is relevant information that should be part of the public record online and thus not requiring a phone call to verify the postmark date, please email the Missouri Ethics Commission at helpdesk@mec.mo.gov.

One final thing, just an observation. While it may be a coincidence that Krewson held her big fundraiser on October 2nd I think the date was no accident. A week earlier and the activity would have been required on the report just submitted. But, no regular quarterly report is due in January so her next report is the 40 day before election report, not due until January 25, 2007 (that would be with a postmark of 1/24/07 if you are doing the math). Either way, this is after filing closes if anyone is considering challenging her they do so not really knowing how much money she raised a couple of weeks ago. Come January 1st contribution limits get tossed the window so someone that gave the maximum of $325 can come back and give considerably more prior to the election. Very smart that Lyda is.

UPDATE 10/20/06 @ 10:15am:

As of yesterday afternoon after 5pm only one change was noted. The Missouri Ethics Commission received the quarterly report from the campaign for Jennifer Florida. However, it was noted as having a bad [unreadable] postmark.

This leaves the following as not yet having submitted reports: Ald. Lewis Reed’s aldermanic campaign committee, Ald Troupe, Ald. Ford-Griffin, Ald. Kennedy, and Ald. Williamson. Five out of twenty-eight, or just under 18%. Reed is now officially running for the President of the Board of Aldermen in 2007. Also in 2007, Ald. Kennedy and Ald. Williamson are up for re-election. I’m guessing they won’t file their intent to seek office again after the deadline.