Support for Donnybrook is provided in part by Design Aire Heating and Cooling.

Well, if you don't know what fair is >> Donnybrook is made possible by the support of the Betsy and Thomas Patterson Foundation and the members of Nine PBS.

>> Well, it was a busy week here in the St.

Louis region and we're going to talk about the top stories on this week's Donnybrook.

Thank you so much for joining us.

But first, let's meet the panelists.

Starting with the media veteran herself.

There she is, Wendy Wiese sitting in for the vacationing Bill McClellan.

Of course, Ms.

Fenske with the 314 podcast, the daily newsletter, and St.

Louis magazine.

From the St.

Louis Post Dispatch and stltoday.com, Joe Holleman and last week's host with the most, Mr.

Provocator.

Thank you so much, Alvin Reed from the St.

Louis American.

I listened to the show on the podcast and it was excellent.

>> Well, thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Right.

>> Hey, we're going to start with you, Sarah.

Um, do you give thumbs up to what seems to be a rumor?

I don't know if it's going to happen or not, but of course, the president sent the National Guard to Washington DC.

He threatened to send it to Chicago.

He is going to send it to Memphis, Tennessee.

And it's been coming up again and again that the National Guard might be on the streets of St.

Louis.

How would St.

Louisans feel if the president sent the National Guard in an attempt to reduce crime?

>> Yeah, I think city residents would be vehemently against this.

You know, there was this famous case in Washington DC where the guy threw a sandwich at the National Guardsman and then the jury refused to indict him.

I think you'd see that playing out all over the city.

People in the city did not vote for Trump.

They do not want federal troops hanging out downtown.

Um, they're going to be against this.

I think you'd see protests and I think you'd see problems that they would cause by being here versus things they could solve.

>> Well, and it seems to be such a a band-aid if if you're looking at a long-term solution, which is what I think we all agree we need, you know, more long-term solutions.

But if you, you know, you you you look at some of the feedback that that people have about uh putting the National Guard to work on infrastructure issues or, you know, clearing trees or doing that kind of thing.

If that's what it would take to perhaps let other areas of city government perform a little bit more efficiently, then I'm for it.

>> Well, sure.

I mean, if they want to clear tornado debris, I think the city would welcome them with open arms.

But that doesn't seem to be what Trump is.

>> I I think if if it reduces crime, if the National Guard had a presence, a show of force, and if they could relieve police officers to do other, you know, uh tasks, the St.

Louis crime stats are better.

But still, like in Walnut Park West, we've had seven homicides this year.

And in Mesa, Arizona, population 500,000.

You know that area?

>> I know Mesa.

I wouldn't I wouldn't hang out in Mesa if you paid me.

>> Yeah.

But they've only had three.

So, one small neighborhood of St.

Louis has had more homicides so far this year than a city of a half a million people.

>> Having been the one who wrote the stories for the Post Dispatch, it basically right now the whole idea of the National Guard coming from St.

Louis seems to have stemmed from Donald Trump mentioning it.

uh because Governor Kehoe, who is the ultimate responsibility for assigning the National Guard, >> uh has not heard about anything from the White House, Josh Hawley's office, Eric Schmidt's office, Wesley Bell's office, Cara Spencer's office, none of them have heard anything.

It seems like it was something that came up in a conversation that the Union Pacific CEO mentioned to President Trump when he was there to talk about an $85 billion merger and Trump said, "What other city should I send him to?"

And this guy said, "Uh, St.

Louis, Jim Vina."

So, you know what?

What are you going to do?

A president asks you a question, you're trying to get a merger through.

So, he mentioned it.

And so, now it's become this.

He's going to send it here to where it seems to be what I like to call the Donald Trump specials.

He says things and then everybody has to scurry to find out how close to an actual plan is this or is it just an idea?

I do think I I I agree with you that there would be people throwing the sandwiches and all that and I think there would people be opposed to it.

Do I think it would be overwhelming opposition?

I disagree.

I think there'd be a lot of people who didn't say a word because as media people, we don't talk to people unless they throw sandwiches.

Those are the people we like to talk to.

I think a lot of people would go what Charlie said.

Well, you know, if they being downtown lets people go out into neighborhoods and actually run police patrols, uh, why not?

And when you said like, well, that's putting a band-aid on a problem.

We want a long-term solution.

Sometimes long term solutions start with applying a band-aid and then moving on.

>> It would be odd if the National Guard came here.

Um Jesse Boen, formerly of the Post Dispatch, had a piece last November that the army, which was on Goodfellow since the 1970s at the Schwarup Center, moved out because of crime that they wanted to keep their security and their equipment and their personnel safe and that's why they moved out to Weldon Springs.

So if the Army moves out, I don't can't see the National Guard saying, "Okay, we're going to move in."

>> Okay.

I I don't know how true that is.

one.

And while I wouldn't throw a sandwich, I would be opposed to it.

I don't live in the city, but I think it would be overwhelmingly because I think 90% of even North St.

Louis would be opposed.

And then you have the other percentages throughout the city.

So, I think it would be a lot of people just But, you know, would be against it.

But I'm also saying like none of this is about dropping crime anyway.

This is Donald Trump talking and look here while everything's falling apart over here.

So, it this is none of this is about reducing the crime rate in any city.

Let's be honest though, it depends on the sandwich.

>> I mean, you're not gonna throw a joyous sandwich, right?

>> Maybe a peanut butter and jelly.

>> Joe Holleman.

Uh, the St.

Louis County Council on Tuesday did not vote for resolution proposed by council person Mark Harter that would have honored the slain right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk.

It was five to two.

Uh, Mark Harter, of course, was for it.

So was Mike Archer.

My view is kind of like, hey, uh if you want to honor people, you can do so, but you can't expect uh your colleagues to vote on some controversial figure and expect them to endorse it.

>> Well, I have a general uh I would have voted against it because I would vote against any political resolution.

And I go back to when I was very first starting covering city hall, Alderman Albert Red Villa and they would do these courtesy resolutions which used to be congratulations to John Smith for 30 years ahead of the Betterment Association and congratulations to this church for 75 years serving the community.

Then they started getting political and he said to me, he said, "You know, Joey," he goes, "You know what?

They they all have in common, they're wallpaper.

They don't mean anything."

And he said, "Other than courtesy resolutions, political stuff, we've had councils recently and board of alderman pass resolutions about Gaza and Palestine and abortion.

They have absolutely no role in it whatsoever.

Instead of wasting time on any of these things that all of them are not meant to unite, they're meant to divide.

It's just on what side you want to divide it on."

I think they should all go away and leave it back to congratulating the people who serve their community and the churches and schools and vote against the rest of them and actually fix streets and do things.

>> Uh being one that has had two resolutions presented to him.

Uh you're right, Joe, on that.

And I think once again, I think in different times or maybe under a different, you know, county executive when this came up, this would be one of those, you know, like come on now, you know, like all this is about is playing to political bases and it's kind of unnecessary at the St.

Louis County Council level.

I mean, I myself, I would have voted against it.

And then if somebody came at me like, well, you just voted against it for this reason.

I said, no, I just voted against it because it was a bad idea.

>> But didn't Mr.

Harter set it up as a as a non-political.

He that's how he set it up.

>> But how can you make the most political issue in America right now be non-political.

Like I think this was meant to be divisive.

And what's ironic here is it ended up doing the one thing that no county executive has been able to do in years, which is it brought all the Democrats on the county council together.

You know, they're finally singing in one voice.

>> And Dennis Hancock, >> right?

Unlike the unlike the resolution that the county council passed decrying the Supreme Court's decision on abortion where all four Democrats endorsed that and all three Republicans voted against it.

All of these are set up to divide at least on political lines.

>> Abortion is a local issue in the sense that uh it's an issue in St.

Louis County.

Uh I'm not sure.

Did Mr.

Kirk ever visit St.

Louis County?

Do we have any connection?

>> I I have no idea.

>> The county council has no role in any of them.

>> But Right.

And didn't the county just come up with a report that like the jail uh didn't pass three important measures when it comes to safety or sanitation?

>> We even got to go to the animal shel.

>> Yeah.

So, I'm thinking I'm thinking the county council has better things to do with >> I would agree.

But how about you Wendy Whis?

There was a paraprofessional who was working for the Duncan R5 school district in Jefferson County.

And after Mr.

Kirk's death.

Uh she posted on someone else's media page that she was celebrating the death with wine.

And the superintendent later said, "No, our guide book says you have to have positive relationships as an employee of the district and you can't purport that your opinions represent the district."

I'm not sure that people thought that her post was representing the district, but she was forced out and she resigned.

Uh, was that appropriate or could we maybe have said, "Look, how about uh take two days off and do some community service but lose your job?"

>> I think it was appropriate.

I think it was appropriate.

It was in the 2025 handbook.

Um, apparently all of the other all of the other employees of the district were aware of or or they are still sort of looking through the the the social media platforms.

I have I have no problem with it.

We all have freedom of speech, but we have to exercise it responsibly and we do.

Whether we think we uh represent our employer or not, that's up to the employer in my opinion.

>> I think there's a couple things going on here where I have a different point of view.

One thing is the fact that she's not like posting this on her page.

This is not like I declare I'm so happy about this.

I'm popping popcorn.

this was just a comment in a conversation that was happening on someone else's page.

That to me feels a little bit different.

And the other thing is the tone of this comment feels different.

If she had said something like, "May he burn in hell or you know, I'm so happy that his kids are going to be crying tonight."

I would be like, "Get that woman out of our schools."

To say, "I'm just having a glass of wine celebrating."

That feels so innocuous to me in light of the online discourse that we have in this.

I don't think so.

I don't see innocuous when you're basically saying I am celebrating the coldblooded murder of somebody with a I I don't see that as innocuous.

I don't think that's at all.

Now, how how where you want to put it on the bad scale, but innocuous would not be the word I would pick.

And we do have freedom of speech.

There are also consequences to your speech, right?

>> And it was very clear that the the district has the right to decide that.

Now, you can say whatever you want.

You can walk into your boss tomorrow and tell them absolutely what you think about them in absolutely no uncertain terms and they can go, "Well, you're fired."

>> I'm not saying the district doesn't have the right to do that.

I understand they have the right to do that and they have what looks like a a solid social media policy.

I think they made the wrong call in this specific.

But if some if somebody said and of course we'll we'll you know uh example ourselves into the next 25 minutes but if somebody made the same comment about Hillary Clinton if somebody said I am celebrating the death of Hillary Clinton I would expect the same outcome >> right the racist tie raid something like that it's happened in recent years >> I would feel the same way if someone said this about I mean this is somebody making $16 an hour this is not let me give you an example because this is actually a a trial like okay a man who was a private pilot uh had a heart attack while he was flying his like Sesna and he crashed into a radio station's like radio tower and the radio station ultimately sued him to replace the radio tower and it came to trial and the judge said I got to rule in favor of the radio station because what am I going to rule on when TWWA and he said TWWA because that was still airlines that he said what am I gonna do when TWWA comes crashing into somebody's house so the school district or in a case like this they have to say like now you know what we're making this choice because this may seem innocuous, but tomorrow somebody might go completely off in response to somebody else.

And then if we let this person keep their job, what do we do with the next person?

I I I would say if it's a first offense, >> I give the person a second chance.

Now, we've had broadcasters in this town who say things sometimes purposely, sometimes mistakenly, like Kevin Steinross, Jamie Allman, compare.

You cannot compare Kevin Steinross celebrating with a glass of wine the assassination of a 31-year-old >> but he he got he got cancelled and I I just don't like it when people get cancelled and he apologized by the way you know for his >> I'll agree with you about being against canceled but it's happened before the only people who are saying it seems like a lot along the same lines as the resolution in front of the county council what you think of this is completely determined by what side of the political ical spectrum you fall on.

I think there's a lot of truth in that because the Republicans used to complain about cancel culture and now the liberals are complaining about >> but to call it innocuous when you say >> I would I would say that if it was about any political figure when I see the hatred I have people telling me horrible things online.

They wish I would kill myself and blah blah blah.

This is this is standard online discourse right now.

This is >> I was joking >> right.

Oh, I >> No, I'm sorry to hear that.

Okay, Wendy.

Wendy, >> I want to uh ask you about the next topic and that is John Deal, former House Speaker in the General Assembly, >> pleaded guilty in a court of law, I think the Eagleton courthouse last week >> to uh stealing $400,000, I think 380,000 uh COVID dollars or he spent it on three automobiles, kids tuition, >> country clubs, >> country club memberships, and apparently his lawyer, who I think is John Rogers, struck a deal with Hal Goldsmith and uh they're going to give him two years in the Greybar Motel at some sentencing if the judge Sarah Pitlick goes along with it in late December.

All right.

I think two years for a top official is too little time.

What do you think?

>> I agree.

I absolutely agree.

I will not celebrate his incarceration with a glass of wine, but I still think that that is I think that's too little.

I would say five years.

This is second this is the second you know second strike in my opinion the the sexually explicit text to the intern during his last uh goround in in the spotlight and then now this he follows up five years five years because you erode the public trust and and just to say oh you've got me and sorry and I'm going to pay the money back that's not enough >> right theoretically he lost his job off of his behavior down there in city as he should have all right the reason that I'm all right with two years is quite frankly as I was reading that story I was thinking like I'm surprised he ain't out on his own recgnissance bad bad guy so the fact that he got two years I'm like >> he might get two years >> he might no the judge could still come in and let him walk scree yes >> I had that same reaction I'm thinking wow we're actually going to see one of these guys do some prison time like great and I think you know it should be enough to get someone's attention and if somebody's like hey you could steal $400,000 but there's a decent chance you'd go to jail for two years.

I'd say, you know what, I'm not going to take that back.

>> Well, and it wasn't this was co money, I believe.

Was it about shocking that people were actually using that whole system to defraud the government?

>> We've had like five or six of those plea uh guilty cases here in St.

Louis being sarcastic.

That's why I'm being sarcastic.

Yeah.

But I think the other thing too is you have to look at and I'm I'm happy that he got a sentence.

I think two years is appropriate.

I also think you have to bring in as a mitigating factor was that he paid the money back.

There's a lot of folks not paying the money back >> because they can't.

>> Well, so because they blew it, >> right?

>> And they all went to I don't think they all had the cars in the house was not sentenced to prison of all the ones that have been busted on this.

They're all facing like either they're on the way to but they've been sentenced.

So I don't think he would escape at least two years because what does that say?

like, you know, all the rest of those thieves don't have to go to prison.

>> People committing gun crimes, not getting five years in prison.

I mean, >> that's not right either.

>> Okay.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

No, I think if you commit a gun crime, I'm >> I'm uh against the illegal use of firearms.

For the record, >> wait.

Hey, >> Alvin.

That doesn't Yeah, that doesn't actually set you apart from anybody else on the panel.

Charlie, >> what do you think?

How about a punishment for uh Senator Lincoln Huff, who was the chair of the appropriations committee in Jefferson City, a Republican and apparently a mastermind when it came to the budget.

Apparently, he really knew mathematics and the Missouri budget at a time when we're going to have some problems in the future.

Well, it turns out that Cindio Lachland, who's the president of the Senate, demoted him, stripped him from his committee chairmanship after he voted against the redistricing redistricting plan that the Senate recently passed that you talked about last week on this program uh that changes the congressional configurations.

So, there he was uh voting against his party and he was stripped of his power.

>> Yeah.

20 minutes after his vote.

apparently she didn't waste any time.

Okay.

I said on this show, let's go back almost maybe uh I guess to the last legislative session, we had a state rep from our area who voted um with the on the school choice bill and she voted with Republicans and she was demoted from her uh Senate committee post.

And I said, look, that to me is a basic tenant of, you know, the Democratic party in my eyes.

So, I had no problem with it.

Now, while the two issues are separate, I can't sit here now and say like, "No, I have to be opposed to what, you know, the the speaker of the house did because I didn't have a problem with it when the Democrats did it early during the legislative session."

So, you I I I applaud his vote.

I think you should vote your conscience just like, you know, um the state rep from St.

Louis did.

Marlene Marlene Davis >> sounds like okay what Marlene Davis voted against her party with was kind of a core issue for Democratic identity right is this core issue for Republican identity now like we just go along with what the president says >> no no I'm not saying that but what I'm saying is the action taken against her I can't I would be being kind of hypocritical if I said like oh this is >> I think you've infused far too much honor into how things work >> you join a party you play with the party and I'm sure that the least surprised person with a demotion was Senator Lincoln.

>> That's right.

>> They It's the way the game gets played.

You go there, you know the rules.

>> Marlene Dav, you didn't hear them complaining.

No, Marlene Davis acted more hurt than he did.

True.

When did the rules change?

>> Because I don't recall uh on Capitol Hill through the years people who voted against the party line losing their chairmanships.

Can we think of a case of that?

You know, >> I will research that, Charlie.

And I know, but I'm thinking too recent.

>> This is the new uh rule.

>> Well, I think you can tell that she's kind of embarrassed about it.

Uh Speaker Olan said, "Oh, it wasn't because of that.

We just want to get a transition plan in place."

She knows this isn't a good look.

>> But we all do.

We all do.

But that's what you say.

It was politics.

>> It was.

Now, you may not be stripped of your chairmanship or something like that, but oh lo and behold, I didn't get to go on the uh congressional excursion to Ireland this year, right?

Funny how that worked out, you know?

So, I'm sure there was some payback, even back in the day.

>> Politics hasn't changed much in the last 200 years when it comes to party loyalty.

>> Everything is ratcheted up, >> right?

>> Okay.

And I I urge She's not the Senate President.

She's the House Speaker.

>> House Speaker.

>> Okay.

Sorry for that.

We apologize for that error.

Uh Alvin, I want to ask you about what might be a change in policy in room 200 at city hall, the mayor's office.

Uh about a week or so ago, everyone was talking about a moratorum on data centers.

You know, those uh big behemoths that use a lot of electricity and they also use a lot of water and they got, you know, kicked out of St.

Charles.

Well, there's going to be a moratorium for one year on them.

And now we're learning that that moratorum may not happen.

that instead rules will be established to evaluate data centers.

What do you think?

>> Well, you know, famous line from a from Don Rickles in a famous movie uh Kelly's Heroes, make a deal, right?

So, I said last week like, hey, look, if they're going to come here, make them pay.

Make a deal.

You know, you could say like, look, we're going to lift the moratorum, but if they want to do this, they're going to pay.

And I think I could live with that.

I could live with that two weeks ago.

I can live with it now.

I don't know that they're going to make them pay, but they are going to make them answer a lot of questions.

They are going to make them go before a hearing.

And I think you will see some of these scuttled by neighbors.

There are places that are going to rise up and say, "I don't want a data center next door."

And now, because of this deal that the mayor forged where she's going to sign this executive order tomorrow, it gives uh people the tools to do that.

So, I think it it seems like a good compromise rather than just saying halt to say, "No, here's the rules we're going to play by."

And yeah, the public gets a lot more input into this.

Good for Megan Green for for seeing, you know, the writing on the wall and and good for Cara Spencer who does seem to be very quick when it comes to these kinds of decisions.

Uh when it's for the good of the city and I love the I love the part about public good for the administration.

I'm not saying no on this one.

Yes, maybe.

So, but but look, if I live in the neighborhood, part of the deal is look, if you're within a mile of the data center, you get $50,000.

I'm I'm talking about that, right?

Pay them off.

>> So, you're talking about like power ball.

>> Wait a minute.

Right.

I'm Hey, if you're going to be like I think that's called extortion, but I don't know.

I don't >> I think Alvin's on to something.

Can we talk about this >> extortion?

There there should be a price to pay.

But what is curious to me is that on this issue, St.

Charles is far more progressive than the city of St.

Louis because around the country, it's the environmentalists and others who are saying, "Look, we don't want the noise.

We don't want the smell.

We don't want that's what they and St.

Charles is more progressive progressive."

Okay, I thought I think there's nimbies on the left and there's nimbies on the right saying, "I don't want it in my backyard."

And in this case, with very good reason.

And look, we have not seen one of these go yet before the city of St.

Louis under these new rules.

I think that's right.

>> They just arrived overnight.

>> Yeah, now hang on.

>> The developer in St.

Charles was our good friend Bob Clark of Cleo.

And we know that not only did he support Cara Spencer and her run for office, her successful run, but that some Cleo employees were kind of in the office after the tornado providing guidance.

Do you think that the mayor has reversed her positions because Bob Clark plays such a big role in these data sets?

>> I mean, I can't rule out, but kind of who cares, right?

But on this one, it's important to know who's >> Look, I got my issues.

I have my issues with Bob Clark on this one.

I mean, everything you do, I'm just going to I'm against everything you do.

This one, you know, I can say and Joe, it's not extortion.

And if you say that again, I'll have your legs broken.

>> I think it does matter who's behind this, but I think it's a lot more than Bob Clark.

It's every developer saying, "Hey, do you want this to be that the city of St.

Louis is closed for business?"

Cara does not want that impression.

That's what's >> I'm also going to climb out on a limb and say that Cara Spencer is probably not the first mayor in the history of the United States who's actually listened to major developers in their city for advice and consent.

>> Of course he is.

I mean Bob Clark is a civic treasure.

Yes, he is.

But I think you have to take a look at people's motivations especially when there are as you articulate week environmental issues.

>> Okay.

But the motivation is the public but this time the public is going to have the impact.

>> There's a complaint.

There's a moratorum.

They revised the way things go.

What else?

How would you have done it different than that?

>> I thought there was going to be a moratorium for a year.

Hey, we got to go to the letters during the 80s.

know the 60s7s and 80s the make things happen guy was Robert Highland general manager of KOX when Mr.

Highland spoke the rest shut up and listened that from Kevin McConnell of St.

Louis we also heard from Jenna Cook of South St.

Louis who wrote if the people of St.

Charles did not want a data center in their area why would you then think let's put it in North St.

Louis, how about you put it in Chesterfield Valley or near the Marramac River by the old Chrysler plant.

Thank you, Janet.

You can write us care of 9PBS St.

Louis, Missouri 63108.

We love those emails, donnybrook 9pbs.org.

On social media, use donnybrookst.

Call the nline if you get a chance.

314512994 and do what I did last week.

Listen to us on your favorite podcast source.

Don't forget to tune in to the 9PBS channel on YouTube.

It's a program we call Last Call.

And this week, we're going to be talking about the latest developments when it comes to tourism in the city of St.

Louis and also St.

Charles and the arch grounds.

Sarah has the scoop and we'll be reacting all that and more.

Otherwise, we'll see you next week on Donny Brook.

Make it a good one.

Donnybrook is made possible by the support of the Betsy and Thomas Patterson Foundation and the members of Nine PBS.