County Executive Charlie Dooley faces a challenge in the August 5 Democratic primary from Councilman Steve Stenger, an attorney from Affton. For years now, Dooley has been the target of relentless criticism by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which frequently has relied on Stenger (when the paper names a source at all) for allegations about Dooley and his administration.
Stenger often is joined in Post stories bashing Dooley by County Prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch, who also stands for reelection on August 5. Though it’s a common protocol for incumbents from the same party defending their seats on the same ballot to support one another, or at least not openly oppose one another, McCulloch – who faces a primary challenge from Leslie T. Broadnax – endorsed Stenger early and aggressively.
McCulloch even posed with Stenger in a campaign ad, where he openly accused Dooley of political corruption, saying, “This kind of corruption is a disgrace.” Ironically – as Dooley points out below – McCulloch’s own office has been a direct target of a recent federal investigation, when one of his staff attorneys sexted a defense attorney who allegedly told her client she could get him favors with the country prosecutor.
McCulloch was touched more closely by that investigation than Dooley was by any of the incidents involving county government that received such lavish attention from the Post. McCulloch was explicitly absolved of blame by the U.S. attorney – but then, so was Dooley, in a letter dated June 2 and distributed to the media. Yet McCulloch’s taint from federal investigation disappeared overnight, while Dooley continues to be dogged by reheated allegations and rumors.
The St. Louis American talked to Dooley about double standards in media coverage of elected officials and why he still wants this job.
The St. Louis American: I have a letter to you from Richard Callahan, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, about the Justice Department’s investigation of Edward Mueth’s embezzlement of funds from the St. Louis County Health Department. In this letter, which was released to the media, Callahan clearly states their investigation “has not disclosed anyone, other than Mr. Mueth, who was involved in that criminal enterprise” and that they have closed the investigation. So why is this still a story in the Post-Dispatch in mid-July? Why are allegations of corruption in your administration continually appearing in their paper?
County Executive Charlie Dooley: I don’t understand. I have not stolen anything. The person who did steal money took his life. His family is without a father. The FBI said he acted alone. So I can’t for the life of me understand why they do that as a story about me every chance they get. I don’t understand. I asked for $95,000 to hire a certified forensic examiner to go through health department records and look for holes. The certified forensic examiner is not about balancing numbers, it’s about seeing where the loopholes and traps are. It went out for bids, and now I am waiting for the council to act on it.
But why the Post keeps talking about this as a story about me, for the life of me, it makes no sense. Why did I get the FBI involved? Because a crime was committed, so I asked the police to investigate and the police asked the FBI because the FBI has more expertise in certain fields. The FBI has sent me three letters telling me not to share their report. That’s federal law. For me, anybody can see the report. But it’s not my call, it’s the FBI’s call. It’s their records.
The American: Do you remember when two senior officials from the Slay administration, Joseph Vacca and Thomas “Dan” Stritzel, were also indicted for embezzling about a million dollars between them from the city and then pled guilty?
Charlie Dooley: Yes, I do remember that.
The American: Did the Post call for Francis Slay to “clean house” of corruption after that?
Charlie Dooley: Not to my knowledge. That never took place
The American: Yet the Post ordered you to “clean house” of corruption in an editorial after the Mueth scandal, did it not?
Charlie Dooley: I do remember that. You’re completely on the mark. Again, there is no corruption in county government. I have no idea where it came from, but it comes up every four years. Yet never has my administration or me or anyone on my staff been under any FBI or police or U.S. attorney investigation.
The American: The Post telling you to “clean house” and to “do so very quickly,” isn’t that a metaphor drawn from domestic service? Do you see some plantation imagery in an all-white editorial board giving this order to a black elected official – to clean the house quickly?
Charlie Dooley: I can’t speak to that, but at times there is a double standard. Things are said about me that might not be said about other officials.
Look at how the Post covered the sexting scandal with the attorney in McCulloch’s office. For all the stories the Post did about rumors of an FBI investigation of me, McCulloch’s office was actually under FBI investigation and he knew it when he was talking about me to the Post. And the Post article about the actual probe into McCulloch’s office lasted half a day, and it was gone. When the story is about me, even if it’s a rumor, it’s played a whole week, then regurgitated the next week.
The American: McCulloch endorsed against you – a fellow Democratic incumbent – very early and has been a very outspoken opponent. What do you see as his motive and impact in this race?
Charlie Dooley: It’s unfortunate. There is no basis for that type of attitude or response to my administration. Every time something goes wrong or someone misspoke, he jumps on it. It’s disrespectful. Quite frankly, to be very clear, Bob never really supported me. He didn’t want me to run the first time. I was not his pick from the beginning.
The American: Do you think Stenger has used the County Council as a political tool in this campaign?
Charlie Dooley: Yes, he has, for years. When Stenger ran for reelection to the council, he ran against me. He put flyers out against me in the 6th District. He’s been running against me for two years. Remember what he said to The American, that he didn’t care what his union buddies wanted, that he would do what was right on inclusion? Now he is supporting the $25,000 restriction on training programs. How can you say you support diversity and then support the $25,000 restriction? He’ll say anything, and he stands for absolutely nothing.
The American: How does supporting the $25,000 restriction mean he opposes inclusion? Please explain for those who don’t know the issue as well as you do.
Charlie Dooley: Bill 131 that Hazel Erby introduced had $750,000 as the ceiling on a contract value before you need a training program. The bill Stenger supported lowered that restriction to $25,000. So if you get a contract from the county for $30,000, you need a training program. What minority-owned business or woman owned business has a training program? It’s exclusion, not inclusion. It’s just an attempt to protect the unions.
The American: Why do you do this? Why do you still want this job?
Charlie Dooley: I love this job. There is work to be done. I still have fire in my belly. There are a lot of things yet to be done. I’m disappointed with Jamestown Mall and convinced it can be a place of value. I’m committed to making it a place of value, like we did with the old Northwest shopping center. People said NorthPark would never be anything, and look at it today.
Look at the inclusion I’ve brought to boards and commissions. My administration is diverse. With Charlie Dooley in this position, you have inclusion, you have everybody at the table represented. To retain talent, people need to feel a part of the community – Asian, Hispanic, Bosnian people. People want to see that they are included in the process. That’s how you grow an economy, by including everybody, and there is still work yet to be done.
