Say It Isn't So Lincoln County

I have been made aware of the following disturbing information and this version has been substantiated. I am hoping that if it isn't entirely accurate that someone will provide the right information with commensurate substantiation.

The information is that the Lincoln County Republican Central Committee Chair, Carol Wessel, REFUSED to allow the Republican State Rep candidate running against Wayne Henke to place a campaign sign in her yard. It would seem that the first obligation of a County Chair is to support ALL Republican candidates equally (with the exception if the candidate is a convicted felon AKA our last Auditor candidate in 2002).

It has also been reported that Bob Kallash, former Republican Central Committee Member and current state committee member, brought Wayne Henke to a pancake breakfast sponsored by the Lincoln County Chapter of the Mo. Fed. Of Rep. Women. It does appear rather strange that Mr. Kallash would bring Democrat Henke to a fundraiser for the Republican candidate for Secretary of State especially when there was a viable Republican candidate running against Mr. Henke.

The bottom line is that it appears to be common knowledge that both Ms. Wessel and Mr. Kallash support Mr. Henke. This raises serious questions about whether the Republican nominee for the 2nd Senatorial District, Scott Rupp, can expect the level of support from members of the Lincoln County Republican Central Committee Chair and key Republican leaders in the county.

There is nothing wrong with having democrat friends, however, when friendship is placed above the duties of elected Republican committee people, then it is time to resign the post.

Democrat Churches vs Wal Mart (If you can't beat 'em - cheat 'em)

It's interesting to see the latest attacks on Wal Mart. Unions licking their wounds after having failed to convince Wal Mart employees that being a member will improve their lives (not many union members can actually show that either), have enlisted their usual democrat allies, liberal churches, as the newest soldiers in the battle. You have probably seen the deceptive, half-truth commercials they have been airing against Wal Mart. Of course our "beloved" Post-Dispatch is on the band wagon which demonstrates even further that the union attack is off base.

There are primarily two areas these groups attempt to attack Wal Mart: health care and wages. Here are the facts regarding these issues:

Wal-Mart offers affordable health care coverage to both its full and part-time associates. Contrary to Wal Mart's enemies false accusation, Wal Mart does provide access to health care insurace to their "associates". Historically, Wal-Mart has paid about two-thirds of the cost of the Associates' Medical Plan. Recent information indicates 620,000 associates have signed up for health insurance coverage in a Wal-Mart sponsored plan. In January, Wal-Mart will provide insurance to more than 1 million people and offer up to 18 different plans. Coverage will be available for as little as $11 per month for individuals and 30 cents per day for children - no matter how many children an associate has.

Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin. Wal Mart has different deductibles to meet individual needs.

Associates also have access to world class healthcare at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other leading health care facilities without insurance approval.

Wal-Mart does not encourage their associates to apply for public assistance. Here again Wal Mart attackers raise false accusations. Wal Mart will be the first to acknowledge that health care is a tough issue... for them and for the country. Wal-Mart has helped 160,000 Americans leave the ranks of the uninsured. A survey of Wal-Mart associates showed more than 30% did not have health insurance before coming to work at Wal-Mart.

The majority of Wal-Mart’s hourly store associates in the United States work full-time. That is well above the 20 - 40 percent typically found in the retail industry. Wal Mart's average hourly wage for regular full-time associates in the U.S. is $9.68 an hour, almost double the federal minimum wage. Wal-Mart’s average full-time wage in urban areas is slightly higher than the national average. For example: Chicago, $10.69; Austin, TX, $10.69; Washington D.C./Baltimore, $10.08; Atlanta, $10.80; and in Los Angeles, $9.99. In St. Charles the average is just over $11.

In recent years, Wal-Mart has contributed 4 percent of an associate's eligible pay to the combined Profit Sharing & 401(k) plan. Hourly associates, just like their management and executive associates, receive bonuses and other incentives for helping the company achieve its goals. In FYE 2005, Wal Mart spent $4.2 billion on benefits for their associates.

Unfortunately, even Republican stalwarts like Schnucks have been suckered into this unholy alliance. It is unfortunate that Schnucks and other local grocers can't fight the union pressures and keep their costs down. However, that is not Wal Mart's fault. So instead of trying to bring Wal Mart down to the union level and make people pay inflated prices driven by the unions, why not rise up to Wal Mart's performance and bring progress to grocery workers around the area and go non-union. We will all be better off if more businesses emulated Wal Mart's success.

Suit filed over county council selection (Journal Art. 12/16/05)

The Journal recently carried an article regarding the filing of a suit regarding the selection of the Republican County Council nominee for the special election to fill Jeff Morrison's seat. The suit was filed by one of the losing candidates who subsequently filed as an independent along with another losing candidate. They and their supporters, who are incidently the same people who are attempting to cause a stir regarding the selection of Rep. Rupp for the 2nd Senatorial, contend that state law was violated in the process through the acceptance of a proxy at the meeting. The contention is incorrect and hopefully the court will allow this to come to its appropriate needless ending.

St. Charles County is a Home Rule Charter County. As such, the County is not required to have any elected officials at all. However, if the people of the County choose to have elected officials which they have, the Missouri Consitituion gives the Home Rule Charter County the authority to describe when and how these elections are to take place to include replacing said elected officials.

In fact, the Constitution is very specific in saying that the state cannot tell a Charter County what elected officials they must have nor how much to pay them (except for the judicial officers which are state positions not county). Article VI Section 18(e) Laws shall be enacted providing for free and open elections in such counties, and laws may be enacted providing the number of salaries of the judicial officers therein as provided by this constitution and by law, but no law shall provide for any other office or employee of the county or fix the salary of any of its officers or employees. (emphasis added)

Other than being required to follow state and federal laws regarding voters' rights, election dates, etc, a Charter County may use any method to select their elected officials and their replacements. The opponents of the selection rely upon State Statutes 115.363.1 and 115.371.1. Despite the fact the Charter is silent on the use of a proxy, these statutes simply don't apply to a Charter County. They are not even on point even if they did apply.

RSMO 115.363.1 says "a party nominating committee of a political party may select a party candidate for nomination to an office on the primary election ballot in the following cases:" Ignoring the fact this doesn't apply to Charter Counties, this special election is not a "primary election ballot". This is a non-starter.

RSMO 115.371.1 says "To select a candidate under the provisions of section 115.363..." (emphasis added). Pretty simple - since 115.363.1 doesn't apply in this case as it is not a "primary election ballot" then this statute also does not apply.

The other issue raised in the article is Rep. Schneider allegedly cast her vote for a "Harold Lampi". Let us assume worst case that the proxy should not have been allowed (disenfranchising 50% of the district) and that Rep. Schneider indeed cast her vote for one "Harold Lampi" the vote would have ended in a tie with 2 votes being cast - one for Lackey and one for Lampi. A re-vote would have been in order at which time Rep. Schneider by her own admission would have voted for Lackey and the vote would have been unanimous.

Bottom line is the selection committee was properly formed, the Charter does not prohibit the use of a proxy, and the vote was taken resulting in a minimum of a majority of the votes if not a unanimous vote being cast for the winning candidate, Darrel Lackey.

It's time to stop wasting the taxpayer's money, accept the loss gracefully and move on.

Unfortunately, some people don't appear to be able to do this or even hold the well-being of the party paramount to their personal agendas. The outcome of this race may well be a repeat of the District 5 race where warring factions split the vote and allowed a Democrat to be elected. If that happens, we know the "credit" will be laid at the feet of four specific individuals (2 Republican "Independents", the Vice Chair of the Central Committee, and an opinionated website publisher who is anything but "Riteon").

St. Charles County 2nd Senatorial

Last night (Wednesday December 14, 2005), the 2nd Senatorial District Committee selected State Rep. Scott Rupp to be the Republican nominee. He was chosen over several other candidates and was the most qualified.

Unfortunately, extremist Republicans both on the committee and one related to the chairwoman of the committee launched attacks on Rep Rupp both at the meeting and after the meeting via a website maintained by one the latter individual. These attacks were launched because their candidate was not selected. The attacks are defended as "standing up for Republican principles" when in fact they are extremist in all facets and go beyond conservative values. In other words, they are the very epitome of the fringe right wing for which our opponents strive so hard to paint us all.

Rep Rupp is very well qualified and is beholden to no one. The "preferred" candidate is a former North County alderman who by many accounts is a Democrat masquerading as a Republican. Hopefully there will be more exposure of the Councilman's modus operandi in the coming months as well as his questionable associations and actions.

However, the most troubling aspect of all of this is the conduct of people who say they are representing Republican values. Absent the presence of proven (not manufactured perception), immoral or unethical behavior - Republicans don't violate Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment. These "operatives" are guilty of not once but repeatedly violating the commandment and should repent.