#30–Rockslide. You are sadly mistaken. That is not HER office. That office belongs to the citizen taxpayers of Missouri, and Jane’s sorry a z z is occupying it at the pleasure of the misguided idiots who wasted their precious vote on such a mediocrity. How presumptive of you! Really!

To rockslide -

Nice try. Perhaps you can point to the articles in the Missouri Constitution, or the appropriate statutes, which declare the physical offices in the Capitol of the state of Missouri as the property to their elected representative and not the people of the state. The Capitol building and state offices are not constructed merely by the voters of the district. Moreover, the residents of Missouri came to speak to Cunningham in her capacity of her committee membership which helps shepherd certain legislation - and is not composed of representatives of each district of the state.

The representative may have the right to shut someone out of the office for just cause - and that would refer to behavior, not fashion - I hardly think that would include the choice of hair color or where piercings are located, do you? As for “looking like slobs” who assigned you, or the Republican party, the sole arbiter of the fashion sense for the people of the state? Again, is there an “appropriate” published appearance code for the people of this state to solicit meetings with their representatives?

According to the young ladies, they were both proper and polite in their behavior and demeanor, which included exhibiting far better manners than their employee, the state representative. And the difference between your tale of the Democrat with the sign on the door and THIS case is that NO ONE was allowed in for a meeting on whatever day for the Dem representative and Cunningham employed a completely subjective screening process based on the lowest form of social etiquette. Surely even a conservative would understand the importance of professional behavior and manners in someone holding public trust and public office, or is that expectation completely limited to only some adherence to a hair-and-makeup code?

Attempting to deflect from what was rude and unbecoming social behavior in a public capacity doesn’t change the fact that Rep. Cunningham is a public servant - not royalty. These young ladies did not pop in out of nowhere, but were part of a planned lobbying day which, I’m assuming, only upset Rep. Cunningham because no one consulted her beforehand to inquire as to today’s squeamish hot buttons in her fashion-conscious personality.

Even Republicans surely understand that constituents are widely different appearing individuals coming from widely different circumstances - or perhaps they only represent the interests of those who appear cloned from the same department store catalog.

In Jane’s defense, as she is a friend, of sorts, she has a delicate and sensitive nature. Not where other people are concerned, of course, but as Pat Paulsen would say, “Picky, picky, picky.”
———————————————————————————————————————–

Obviously that doesn’t extend to common decency and good manners.

How terrible a busy person threw non-constituent disgusting looking people out of her office.
Cut me a break, dress respectfully, and take the dye out of your hair when you go to the capitol. How can you possibly compare someone who was injured in an accident to someone who mutilates their body intentionally?

————————————————————————————————————————–

Apparently you know little about the functions of committees in your own state government.
However, it’s refreshing that you view “disgusting looking people” as beneath yourself. . .I’m sure if you ever have occasion to visit your elected officials, you’ll forward them a picture beforehand to ensure that you are non-disgusting looking enough to petition your government. Why don’t you advise the government to pass such a law?

to butcherfan -

“mutilates the body”? what do you call shaving? And, it appears from the representatives own picture, that she likely has holes poked into her ear lobes, dyes her own hair, and wears unnatural makeup. She also likely wears clothing made of flimsy material, unnatural heels to elevate her legs - which also force her to walk unnaturally on the front of her feet, and puts paint on her nails. If we assert your standard, the representative unnaturally mutilates her own body every time she has a waxing and slips on a pair of heels to rush off to the hairdresser and get the gray colored. Then she likely squirts herself from a bottle of unnatural perfume, bathes in flowered or fruit-smelling scents. . .all unnatural.

The only thing pathetic here is how conservatives struggle to justify the improper behavior and incredibly poor manners of an obviously arrogant state representative - who apparently views holding public office as an entitlement based on her own shopping and self-mutilation choices.

State Reps are there to serve the people whom the represent. As a group all the state reps working together make up the system. If these students needed to talk to a state rep, they should have gone to THERE state rep. Weather what is said to have happened actually did or not, that left to be seen. If it happened its wrong, but that is left to be seen. They tell both sides of the story here, why do people automatically look to the worst in someone.

Jane: you take the tax money in the form of a pay check, now you should act like someone who wants to lead. If you don’t want the money or the office, then RESIGN your seat in the House and we will hold a special election and fill it with someone who may at least act the part of a leader.

Leader in Education? You need to return to school and start to understand that many out here neither like nor want you in office because of your childish election stunts, lies about your supporters, lies who you work for (give us a break-Washington DC, now really!)

Save face Jane, resign now or it’s the boot in August as far as that state senate seat goes. We are tired of the BS coming from the elected front men/women now holding office! A little trust would be nice (come to think of it, some honesty from you would be a nice surprise!!)

State Reps are there to serve the people whom the represent. As a group all the state reps working together make up the system. If these students needed to talk to a state rep, they should have gone to THERE state rep.
———————————————————————————————————-
They went to speak to the proper representatives who are members of the House committee which was addressing their concerns. Perhaps a law should be passed which restricts those committees to representatives who are interested in conducting the public’s business instead of those arrogantly attached to obsessive personal issues regarding appearance and hair color.
Cunningham’s behavior is an embarassment to her entire district.

As it turns out, I was standing outside Rep. Cunningham’s office on March 26 as Desiree and Austyn were being ejected. I’m a board member of PROMO, the organization that was lobbying that day for a Safe Schools Bill, and I’m a pediatrician at Cardinal Glennon. The girls were quiet and polite; they were dressed neatly and like teenagers. I’m a 53-year-old white guy. I wouldn’t dress like they do, but a lot of my patients dress like them when they come to my office. They don’t do it out of disrespect. They do it because that is how they and their friends dress, period. No big deal. The point is this: What message does it give to schools, to administrators, to teachers, about youth when the chair of the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee, the person in the Missouri House of Representatives, the woman who should be their greatest champion, is tossing these youth out on the street? Yes, these youth had every right to be lobbying a committee chair about a bill that her committee would be considering, and they had every right to be in the State Capitol to bring that message to legislators. Rep. Cunningmham’s lack of courtesy speaks volumes about her fitness for her committee post.
And Tony, one correction to your original post. You stated that “Lampe wants to see the [Safe Schools Bill] specifically address bullying against students because of sexual orientation.” Not true. The current law in Missouri around bullying states that the bully is to be reprimanded, but there is no provision to find out what is behind the bullying. Is it because of the victim’s race, gender, religion, perceived sexual orientation? The schools are not supposed to ask. They are just supposed to tell the bully to “cut it out.” So if kids in a school are being systematically bullied because they are Muslim, African-American, gay, the school is actively discouraged by current law from getting to the root cause and getting the perpetrators effective counseling. Rep. Lampe’s version would hold schools accountable for finding out why kids are being bullied – and compel them to do something about it.

re 40: Gee Bill, you have your own campaign to work on. Don’t you have something more imortant to do than worrying about Jane Cunningham and her race?