GOP steamed as Montee’s ex gets another fee office contract
James Montee
When he took office, Gov. Jay Nixon pledged to clean-up the process of awarding management contracts for motor vehicle fee offices, which have long been used as political chits in both parties.
So it should come as no surprise that when a prominent political name lands one of the contracts, the partisan criticism is not far behind.
Today, the Missouri GOP lambasted Nixon after James Montee — ex-husband of State Auditor Susan Montee – was awarded a contract to manage the fee office in St. Joseph. Montee previously received the nod to operate the office in Lee’s Summit.
“Each time Nixon taps another prominent Democrat to run a fee office,” Missouri GOP executive director Lloyd Smith said in a statement, “his claim to have reformed the system grows weaker.”
As Post-Dispatch scribe Tony Messenger has covered at-length, Nixon vowed to end the political patronage system of awarding fee offices to political donors. And while the offices have been bid — and the bidding documents are available online — some Democratic donors have won the bids for some of the state’s most lucrative fee offices.
Earlier in the year, Democratic donor Ken Kielty was tapped to run the St. Charles license office.
Nixon and his staff have defended the process because it’s all being done out in the open, through public bidding. Some offices have gone to Republicans, some Democrats, and some non-profit agencies have won bids.
James Montee is a lawyer and prominent Democratic campaign contributor. He and Susan divorced after she was elected in 2006.
It’s just a coincidence that fee offices are being awarded to Democratic donors. Now let’s get back to important things, like reviewing Matt Blunt’s emails.
I have never liked the fee office patronage system. Nixon may be handling this better than the way Blunt handled it but it hard to believe that it is a coincidence that all these big donors are still getting offices. It doesn’t seem like this is what Nixon promised.
If the bids are lower, the bids are lower. It doesn’t matter if the person making the low bid is a Democrat who supported Nixon or a Republican. This is a prime example of the Republicans trying to play politics. For years, the offices were given out simply based on patronage. Nixon has instituted a policy to bid the offices out with the goal of making the state money. Maybe I’m wrong, but that seems like a good thing and an appropriate way to run the fee offices. Still, all the Republicans do is complain. They won’t be happy no matter what Nixon does.
Why not use the phone book to pick out candidates for fee offices? Why is it always the Republicans playing politics in Missouri? Can’t it be the Democrats and the media focusing only on one sided corruption at the government level. Nixon is supposed to know the law, but somehow that eludes the decision making, top Democrat and his politics.
I guess this statement doesn’t hold any water. Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely. We only hear about republican mistakes, but certainly the democrats makes a lot of mistakes too. We just don’t hear about Mo. Democrats as much.
It refers to his as ex husband of the State Auditor says they are divorced but according to her voter registration records she still lives with him. Separation of convenience???
How is the this corrupt? Give an example of how Nixon doesn’t know the law with fee offices? Democrats play politics, everyone does. But, how is this Nixon playing politics? Its easy to string together allegations and talking points. Apparently it is a little more difficult to actually state what the Governor is doing wrong.
“ important things, like reviewing Matt Blunt’s emails ”
Obligatory picture of “The Road to a Pulitzer” journalism at work:
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/files/2008/12/cd-er-blunts-email-01.jpg
> If the bids are lower, the bids are lower.
It’s not that simple, Jefferson. The bidding is based on a scoring of a lengthy business plan document, evaluated by Office of Administration staff, with the final decision made by the Director of Revenue. So there is plenty of room for subjectivity. I have no idea whether the process is fair or not, but if somebody wanted to make it unfair, there’s plenty of room to do that.