UPDATED @ 5:32 PM:  Part of the trouble with “She Said, She Said” beefs is that they can get pretty confusing pretty quickly. To clear things up, Jeanette Mott Oxford sent us an email making clear what she was — and was not — apologizing to Jane Cunningham for.

Antonio,

I hope it is clear that what I’m apologizing for is not meeting with Rep. Cunningham in advance and asking her to take the three steps in the press release I issued last week in that private session FIRST. I am taking no position on what really happened in her office. But I wish I had offered her a chance to say yes or no to those three steps before taking my case to the public.

Something about how the article from today is framed could lead one to believe I have accepted her side of the story. I still believe the students deserved a different response, a welcome. Even if she could not take time to meet with them that day, she could have invited them to write her with concerns. Being chair of that committee carries a responsibility to hear the witness of youths who have been bullied. And objections about how a young person’s fashion choices (if one chooses to voice them) could be stated in a manner that invites dialogue instead of language that shames that young person.

JMO

Jeanette Mott Oxford
State Representative, 59th District

Here’s our earlier story:

A Democratic legislator has apologized to one of her Republican colleagues after accusing her of disrespecting a group of teenagers attempting to lobby her support for an anti-bullying bill.

Last week, State Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford (D-St. Louis) put out a press release claiming State Rep. Jane Cunningham (R-Chesterfield) refused to meet with students Desiree Bain and Austyn Langston of Jackson County because “she found their appearance very difficult to look at.” [Read our earlier story.]

Oxford, who did meet with the students, said they had multiple facial piercings and one had vividly colored hair. “Other than that they looked like regular teenagers to me,” Oxford said.

According to a press release for Oxford’s office, after refusing to meet with Langston and Bain, Rep. Cunningham told another group of students that “looking at these two young women was making her ill and that she didn’t understand why they hated themselves.”

Apparently that’s not exactly what happened.

Shortly after making the accusations at a press conference, Oxford, now armed with Cunningham’s side of the story, sent her colleague the following apology:

From:Jeanette Oxford 

Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:39 PM
To: Jane Cunningham
Subject: my apologies
 
Rep. Cunningham,

I owe you an apology. Today I led a press conference calling for passage of the Safe Schools bill (HB 1751) and for you to meet with students who were asked to leave your office. I asked for you to hear their experiences of being bullied at school and to attend the Inclusion Institute for Educators this summer. It should have occurred to me to come to you first and to ask you personally to take those steps. No legislator wants to feel ambushed by her colleagues or the media, and I had not thought this out properly.

It is no excuse, but this is a case where my heart got ahead of my head. As a person who experienced school bullying as a child (bullying based on size, on other appearance characteristics, and on religion), as the best friend of a gay boy who was bullied unmercifully when we were high school students, and as an out lesbian who feels a responsibility to make schools safer now than they were when I was a teen, I simply did not think the process through as well as I should. I wanted to highlight the problem of school bullying - and I can assure you that almost all of the press conference time today WAS indeed focused on information and questions about school bullying, not about you - but still when Bob Watson asked me during the press conference why I didn’t just go to you, it hit me that I should have done that first.

I ask you to recognize that I persuaded Rep. Lampe and Sen. Justus to participate in the press conference today and that my invitation to them focused on the importance of our moving the issue of safe schools forward. If the pace of our week here had allowed it, we quite possibly would have sat and talked through many issues related to the press conference and spotted that an important step had not been taken. Rep. Lampe and Sen. Justus may have even assumed that step HAD been taken; I’m not sure. They left the background work to me and agreed to show up and make a brief statement today. I believe they agreed to attend due to their relationship with me. No malice toward you was intended by any of us. What we want to see is safe schools for all of Missouri’s children. I believe you share that aim as well, but that you have not yet come to recognize some of the realities connected to the dynamics of oppression.

You are welcome to share my apology with the media (thus the written apology) if that is your desire, and I’ll be glad to meet with you and PROMO, the students, the media or anyone else with whom you invite me to meet on this topic.

JMO
Jeanette Mott Oxford
State Representative, 59th District
573-751-4567 (Jefferson City)
314-772-0301 (St. Louis)

Cunningham’s office also released the following statement on the matter:

Because of the heavy legislative role and hectic pace of Jane’s office they have a standard operating procedure that when they have tight deadlines, they try hard to take a few minutes to visit with constituents.  Jane’s office always asks if visitors are constituents. The teens misrepresented themselves as living in Jane’s district and would not leave when asked.  

Even the teen’s chaperone inserted her foot in Jane’s door when Jane’s assistant repeatedly told her we had to prepare for a committee hearing. The assistant was shaken by the experience.    

The elected school board of St. Louis Public Schools released the following statement tonight following the effective firing of Superintendent Diana Bourisaw by the state-authorized Special Administrative Board and forum tonight on the closing of eight more city schools:

State Control of Local Schools – No Room for Children?

Recent actions by the state appointed board (SAB) running St. Louis Public Schools make one thing very clear: the well-being of students is not one of their top concerns.

The members of the SAB clearly are following the charge laid down for them by the Missouri Board of Education: squirrel money away in an account you will never touch instead of spending it to educate city children. The state board of education established the SAB on the recommendation of a report that called for closing many schools in St. Louis in order to transfer money from the school district’s operating budget into the desegregation capital budget, a budget that the state board says can only be used to build new schools in the unlikely event that the county school districts suddenly pull out of the interdistrict transfer program and send all the city residents in their schools packing back to the city. The state board of education and the Missouri Attorney General have it in their power to waive payments into the desegregation capital fund. We think it is wrong that they do not do so.

School Closings

We believe that the state board of education’s demands that St. Louis Public Schools forego spending money it has on education and instead place it into a fund that the state hopes to takeover in 40 years is outrageous and immoral. We unequivocally oppose closing schools to bank money for the state.

We also note that the assumption shared by the state board of education and the SAB that smaller schools are more expensive to operate than larger schools is an assumption that is not supported by research. Studies by researchers at Brown University and the University of Wisconsin, for example, have shown that small schools are not any more expensive to operate than large schools. The key is not how large a school is, but how it is managed.

Instead of closing neighborhood schools, the SAB could have looked at changing the way they are managed to save money. One suggestion to emerge from neighborhood meetings is to have the principal and literacy coach in small schools teach classes, in other words, make the administrative positions part time administrative and part time teaching positions. Yes, that would have required getting the teachers’ and administrators’ unions to agree to changes in their contracts. More significantly, perhaps, it would have required that district administrators – education officers, assistant superintendents, and the superintendent – give up their practice of routinely pulling principals out of schools for daylong meetings. They would have had to think more carefully about when they really needed to pull a principal out of school and plan better in order to use principals’ time out of school more efficiently.

The SAB’s failure to consider alternative management structures for small schools suggests that they are more concerned with preserving management the way it is than with serving children.

The financial talk surrounding this round of school closings masks a prejudiced belief that city school children do not deserve the same small class sizes enjoyed by children in the county. Elaborate arguments about school capacity and utilization are all about one thing: making sure that when city public school children attend school they are in the largest classes possible. We believe that is wrong and we urge the state board of education and the attorney general to do the right thing and forgive payments to the desegregation capital fund.

Forgiving payments the desegregation capital fund would not do away with all of the school district’s financial woes – the state’s charter school policy of having more and more schools fight for pieces of the same fixed financial pie ensures that the city school district will continue to face strong financial pressures – but it would give the school district breathing space to consider alternatives. A year ago, the St. Louis Board of Education asked staff to estimate the cost of reducing class sizes to the state’s “desirable” level. That estimate could have served as the basis for a discussion with legislators and the community about funding. Under the weight of the campaign by the state education commissioner, Kent King, to remove the school district’s accreditation and the remove the elected school board, district staff never prepared or presented that estimate. The SAB never requested it. Forgiving payments to the capital fund could give the SAB time to repair its negligence, if it so desired.

School Violence

The decision to return to the classroom students, who were suspended earlier this year for such felonious offenses as making death threats to staff or getting caught with weapons or drugs at school, is another example of the SAB sacrificing students in order to put a few more bucks in the bank. Such students should have been removed from the population they threatened and put in a program where they can get the concentrated services to change their behavior and progress academically. We emphasize that the issue is one of providing students the services they need, not one of punishment. The decision not to provide such services is really a decision about money that hurts everyone in the school. We strongly urge the SAB to reconsider its decision to deny alternative education services to violent students.

Superintendent

Less than one year ago, the state board of education declared that it had to replace the elected school board with an appointed board in order to stop “the revolving door” of superintendents in the school district. They said an appointed board was necessary to bring stability to the superintendent’s office. Now, one week after the state-appointed CEO is confirmed in his position, he is spinning that door again, and for no good reason. The statement from the SAB that everything was good with the superintendent, but they wanted a change, apparently simply for the sake of change, is insufficient reason for again creating uproar and instability in St. Louis Public Schools.

We believe the SAB owes the public an explanation for their precipitous decision to fire Diana Bourisaw.

In addition to approving the above statement tonight, the school board also voted to appeal the recent court decision which upheld the state takeover of the district.

Last week St. Louis County state representative candidate Don Calloway, Jr. penned a letter to the St. Louis American questioning the strategy of those involved in the effort to recall St. Louis City Mayor Francis Slay. Calloway, an attorney at the firm Thompson Coburn (as of July, Calloway is now with the firm Lathrop & Gage) and a political newbie, is running in the district currently represented by Ester Haywood, who is term-limited.

Whatever justification there may be for the criticism [against Slay], the current recall effort is possibly the most horrendous thing the anti-Slay contingent could have come up with …

… A recall, similar to any other election, is a battle of campaign finance. The pro-Slay contingent will be raising lots of cash to combat the recall. The pro-recall committee doesn’t have the support of an established political base to give enough money to make the recall effort viable. Furthermore, political donations are public record. This will force otherwise-closeted supporters who could give big money to support a recall into the open, which many are not willing to risk.

The Slay for Mayor October 2007 quarterly report shows $318,000 on hand, every penny of which can be lawfully used to battle a recall. Strategically, the pro-recall committee has helped Slay, by giving him a golden opportunity to raise money that will eventually go to his 2009 reelection effort…

Most importantly, the pro-recall effort will weaken the moral authority and political viability of our most important advocacy group: the St. Louis Clergy Coalition.

Contrary to mainstream media reports, the recall is NOT a Clergy Coalition thing, it is a Rev. Douglas Parham thing. As president of the coalition, Parham had to have known that taking a stand as the face of the recall would paint the entire coalition as being in support. This is not the case. At the Oct. 21 recall rally, coalition members in support included Parham and the Rev. James T. Morris, who as a candidate for the state House can take political stances. Where were the Revs. Sammy Jones, Earl Nance Jr. or E.G. Shields? The recall is not a Clergy Coalition endeavor.

Calloway’s letter fails to mention that Rev. Shields is his campaign treasurer.

In response, local activist Eric Vickers, who is one of the organizers of the recall effort, wrote an open letter to Calloway defending the strategy and attacking the young candidate for his old thinking.

[Calloway’s] claim that the recall is infeasible because it “doesn’t have the support of an established political base,” is indicative of the racial paradox that has stymied the collective progress by blacks in this city. That paradox, simply put, is the difference between talk and action, the difference between black leaders being captive or being free.

Too many of this city’s black leaders (and blacks in positions like Calloway) live in a benign state of captivity in which they dare not confront the powers that crush beloved black men like Sherman George. They are as afraid today to face and fight a mayor as Frederick Douglas was initially with his slave master. They say it is a difference of means and methods and approaches, but in the end it is fear.

In the end, they are leaders who, as Douglas poetically put it, “profess to favor freedom and deprecate agitation,” but “want crops without plowing up the ground…rain without thunder and lightning.”

In the end, they will realize that Douglas is right about Mayor Slay: “power concedes nothing without a demand.”

Click here to read Calloway’s full letter.
Click here to read Vickers’ full response.

We’re a little late posting this video, shot Saturday outside the America’s Convention Center in downtown St. Louis.

Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Brotherhood of Union Support Staff (BUSS) picketed outside the convention center, where the Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition (Pro-Vote) was holding its 12th Annual Progressive Awards Dinner.

SEIU has filed a formal complaint against Pro-Vote with the National Labor Relations Board charging the organization with “union-busting” and “constructively firing” workers who tried to organize.

Click To Play

Earlier Story:

VIDEO: Beef Between SEIU and Pro-Vote

Subscribe to our video feed: http://pubdef.blip.tv/rss/itunes

There is a growing rift between two of the more active organizations in Missouri Democratic politics.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is charging the liberal political action group Missouri Pro-Vote with “union-busting.” Meanwhile, Pro-Vote says SEIU Local 2000 and the Brotherhood of Union Support (BUSS) are using intimidation and harassment to force its five St. Louis employees to join the union.

SEIU has filed a formal complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. Pro-Vote has responded by kicking SEIU off its steering committee.

On Wednesday we filed a formal counter-notification with YouTube in response to our account being suspended and our more than 500 videos being taken off-line. The suspension came just hours after KSDK Channel 5 filed two complaints with YouTube alleging that we violated their copyrights by using clips of their broadcast in our piece criticizing their coverage.

We believe our usage of KSDK’s video falls under the “Fair Use” provision in copyright law. From the Stanford University Libraries:

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist’s work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work.

Here is a PDF of the counter-notification. We received word from YouTube last night that they had received it and forwarded it to KSDK.

Here again is the video at the center of KSDK’s complaint:

No word yet on when — or if — we’ll get access to our 500 unrelated videos.

Thanks to the following websites for mentioning our plight:

NewTeeVee.com
Missouri Political News Service
Arenas of Ideas
Arch City Chronicle
BlogKC
It’s My Mind
Highway 61
The Riverfront Times
Dee Harvey
Bill Streeter from LoFiSTL.com

Speaking at a meeting hosted by Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe Wednesday in north St. Louis, freshman alderman Marlene Davis fired off at legislators that voted in favor of the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit (three of the four northside state reps and both state senators supported it).

She also weighed in on Fire Chief Sherman George’s situation. She said voters should hold Mayor Francis Slay accountable in 2009.

Click To Play

Davis joined Troupe in spreading some incorrect information about the Land Assemblage Tax Credit that caused fear in the minds of many poor homeowners in the audience.

She said the legislation was filled with “jargon” that “doesn’t mean a whole lot other than [developer Paul McKee] can have what he wants and you don’t have no say so.”

That is false.

1. The words which Davis disregarded as “jargon” say that the tax credit can only be awarded after the Board of Aldermen has passed an ordinance approving the redevelopment plan. That process, like with any other bill, means public meetings and hearings.
2. Any “giving private land or property to a developer” has to be initiated and approved by the Board of Aldermen. This piece of legislation has nothing to do with that process.
3. Any properties taken by eminent domain, condemnation, or acquired from the LRA are not eligible for this tax credit. Such properties may be part of the total redevelopment, but only if the ordinance passed by the Board of Aldermen says so.
4. I am not aware of any instance in the history of the Board of Aldermen (and please, if someone knows otherwise, do let me know) when a property was taken by eminent domain without the support of the alderman in whose ward that property was located.
5. Most of the Blairmont property is located in the 5th Ward where Alderman April Ford-Griffin has said repeatedly that she will not support — and in fact, fight — anyone’s property being taken by eminent domain for this project. One can only assume that Davis, in whose ward McKee also owns property, has a similar position.

There is too much on record that developer Paul McKee and the City of St. Louis have done wrong since the inception of this project that there is no need for people to start making things up. It damages the credibility of the valid arguments of people who are serious about making sure this project benefits the people who live there today and it’s irresponsible because it uses lies to scare the shit out of people.

While these people keep spinning the events of two weeks ago they are missing the fight which is going on right now.

Details, details. We’ve said it before and we will keep saying it. The difference between if this thing turns out to be good for St. Louis or very bad for the people who live in the Blairmont area will be in the details.

All the little details not expressly stated in the legislation — you know, all that “jargon” — is being worked out right now by bureaucrats at the Missouri Department of Economic Development in the form of rules. These rules will further lay the groundwork for what can and cannot be done with this money.

Please, no more public meetings and press conferences on old stuff. Three in one week is quite enough.

Will the legislators who are unafraid of big words and legal phrases please get back to the table. This thing is not over.

Look for more videos from Wednesday’s meeting later.

UPDATE: And if you haven’t read the final version of the legislation, here’s a link (see pages 13-18).

And if you’d rather watch someone explain it to you (I know you spoiled PubDef readers like the video stuff), here is a very informative 10-minute video of Sally Hemingway from the Department of Economic Development discussing the tax credit in detail.

Mayor Francis Slay and his public safety director, Sam Simon, have issued another — much stronger — ultimatum to Fire Chief Sherman George: promote by next Friday or face disciplinary action.

Click here to read Simon’s letter (via KSDK).

Members of the elected school board dropped a stack of homework on Superintendent Diana Bourisaw’s desk last night.

The Board added to next week’s agenda requests for 20 different reports and information requests from Bourisaw and her staff. But all the other requests really could have been rolled up into the one from former Board President Veronica O’Brien: a letter from Bourisaw saying who she thinks she works for — the elected board that hired her or the newly appointed board that is in charge of the district now?

Requests from the board members present:

Bourisaw was not at last night’s meeting. She, along with several district employees and CEO Rick Sullivan, are attending a seminar at Harvard University on urban education. According to a district spokesperson, she is expected to be back in the office on Monday.

(Video shot by Intern Gabe Bullard)

Kristen Hinman of The Riverfront Times posted a story yesterday on their blog about Susan Turk’s recent email about me and my involvement, as an advisor to Lewis Reed, with the selection of Richard K. Gaines, one of the members of the Special Advisory Board of St. Louis Public Schools.

“… for my money, for Antonio to be on a payroll collaborating with the installation of the Trans Board and then to go off and complain about it in print amounts to highly questionable behavior,” wrote Turk.

One more thing:  The RFT’s story is called “French Bread”. Come on, guys. You can be more clever than that.