The City of St. Louis is preparing to elect a new mayor at a time of unprecedented uncertainty but increasing potential. We publish these thoughts the day before Donald Trump is inaugurated as president of the United States with less popular support than any modern president. This is an emotionally immature and ethically corrupt reality TV star, who won by stoking latent xenophobia, misogyny, racism and isolationism more in keeping with the 19th century than the 21st. Clearly, no one needs our help grasping the level of uncertainty in 2017 for the United States, and especially for its cities. They are the strongholds of the more enlightened diversity that was reviled by this new president and his supporters.
Nevertheless, St. Louis has become a city poised for renewal, even taking into account the perilous years ahead for most cities and their diverse inhabitants. As a xenophobic, misogynist, fact-resistant populist movement energized just enough voters in just enough swing states to give this obnoxious man an Electoral College victory, St. Louis has started to move in the other direction. The Ferguson uprising may have contributed to the national “whitelash” critical to Trump’s victory, but within our region, it revealed an urgent need for a substantial reset of our priorities. The Ferguson Commission analyzed the region through “the lens of racial equity,” and despite the nonsense Trump may be tweeting, based on whatever untruths, this region must focus better our attention and resources, so that Ferguson – or worse – does not happen here again.
That is what makes the media coverage of the mayoral race to date so dismaying and self-defeating. One of the major candidates for mayor most committed to change – who consciously cites the “lens of racial equity” phrase enshrined in the Ferguson Commission’s report – is the leading subject for coverage of the mayoral contest in the Post-Dispatch and some broadcast media, but not for her ideas for change or her track record of an impressive turnaround in her current position as city treasurer. Instead, she has been repeatedly attacked on the basis of facts that are so outdated as to be irrelevant or taken completely out of meaningful context.
Yes, Tishaura O. Jones filed for bankruptcy in 1999 when the business reporter who ran with the story was eight years old. Yes, the treasurer’s office under her direction did bond business with a firm, IFS Securities, that employs an ex-felon who once did business with her father, former Comptroller Virvus Jones. The State of Missouri and many other public entities also do bond business with the same firm (and some of its competitors in the bond business recently have settled on horrific fraud cases that make IFS Securities look like an honorable alternative). Further, IFS Securities is black-owned, and Jones makes no secret about her belief in racial equity when reviewing city vendors or her belief that ex-felons deserve the chance to get on with their lives and business. Moreover, there is no evidence that the city was not well served financially by her decision.
The latest media-manufactured outrage at Jones concerns the travel expenses for which she bills the city. As our news report this week makes clear, this reporting overlooks the fact that other city offices are given larger budgets for discretionary expenses than the sums for which Jones was reimbursed. The mayor ($30,000) and circuit attorney ($32,000) receive annual discretionary funds that are greater than the total travel expenses for which Jones billed the city in four years ($27,000) – and they receive those sums every year. The aldermen expressing outrage at Jones in media reports receive $4,200 a year for discretionary spending, or $16,800 over the past four years (less than $27,000, but not much less), without being required to submit a single receipt. Further, the Board of Aldermen approved the travel budget that Jones draws upon when she submits expenses.
In fact, Jones is the only one of these city elected officials who does not have a discretionary expense account – because she opted out of it when she came into office. “I wanted to make sure that we made everything transparent,” Jones said. “I decided I would submit receipts for my travel.” Jones is being attacked for her upfront, intentional transparency, just as she was attacked for doing fiscally sound business with a minority firm that employs an ex-felon who served his time and regained his broker’s license.
If racial equity and good government are what we want for this struggling city that is trying to redirect itself, then why is everyone attacking Tishaura O. Jones? We need to focus on the larger aspects of public policy. This city cannot afford to continue a status quo that ignores factors that help spawn violent crime and stifle economic growth. Despite our considerable assets, St. Louis will continue to lag behind its peer cities if we are unwilling to raise the level of our public discussion. St. Louis cannot afford to get mired in a divisive squabble enabled by those in the news media who seem willing to take the low road at the expense of fair and balanced, objective journalism.
