In a top-of-the-fold, bold-headlined article about the hiring practices of St. Louis Treasurer Larry Williams, which was clearly meant to be a take-out piece, Post-Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman revealed more about the Post’s political IQ than anything damaging to Williams or newsworthy about his motives for hiring staff.
Wagman and the Post exposed patronage hiring – in a county patronage office! Pardon the EYE’s French, but: no sh*t, Sherlock. To print a story “exposing” employees of the treasurer’s office who are politically connected or blood-related to someone who is politically connected is like exposing the Pope for anointing Catholic cardinals.
Certain elective offices in the city, most of which perform county functions – treasurer, recorder of deeds, collector of revenue, license collector, sheriff, circuit clerk, public administrator and circuit attorney – are so steeped in patronage that they are referred to openly as “patronage offices.” All such offices have employees who are politicians or have political connections through their family, friends or significant others. That’s the deal.
Since Wagman’s piece was not introduced as the first of a series of articles that examine the hiring practices of these county patronage offices, the EYE wonders why Wagman and the Post decided to single out Williams. Almost every elected official in the city of St. Louis (from the mayor on down) has a relative or friend or political associate working in one of the eight patronage offices. If this is a sin, St. Louis is a city of sinners.
The other line of reporting in Wagman’s story apparently intended to damage Williams concerns Williams’ stated openness to hiring ex-offenders and even ex-felons. It is hard to believe that the treasurer is the only local official who has hired ex-felons in the past or has ex-felons working for him now. At any rate, the EYE fails to see why hiring free citizens with a criminal record should embarrass anyone. Crime is despicable, not necessarily criminals, and anyone attempting to rehabilitate himself or herself from a criminal past deserves at least as much opportunity and advantage as those fortunate never to have drifted into criminal habits and been busted in the act.
Despite its scandalous vibe, the Post story proved much ado about nothing. Instead, the article painted a picture of an elected official who is sensitive to the problems ex-offenders have in getting employment after having served their time or while working their way through probation. The EYE hopes this cyncial report in the Post will have the unintended consequence of inspiring other officeholders and private-sector employers to adopt an ex-felon hiring quota similar to the two percent that work in the treasurer’s office. And any employer assisting in the rehabilitation of individuals with a criminal past should contact us and inform us of your good works.