Full Transcript of Vital VOICE ***EXCLUSIVE*** interview with candidate Mike Colona (67th District)

2008 Vital VOICE Primary Candidate Interviews
By: Lucas Hudson, Editor
& Colin Murphy, Senior Writer

VITAL VOICE INTERVIEW
MIKE COLONA
JULY 2, 2008

Colin Murphy, Senior Writer: Obviously you’re stellar on GLBT issues so I was wondering if you could talk about the significance of the historic nature of your candidacy. You would be only the second "out" gay man to serve in the Missouri General Assembly if elected and grow the GLBT caucus to three. Could you talk about having out and proud gay public servants in Jefferson City?

Mike Colona: A couple of things—I think you're right, I would be the second openly gay man ever to be elected to the Missouri House. I think that’s extremely important, we do have two out individuals down in Jefferson City and I think a third one can really help make the difference. I think it’s our obligation as out individuals to approach people, break down stereotypes and even though I’m running as a gay man, it’s just a part of the campaign.

If you take a look at some of the organizations, some of the people that have supported me they are traditional, Democratic organizations that look at platforms—may have been considered conservative—for example, the police officer’s association, in the past—but here we are in the 21-century and they have come to the point and progression in society that sexuality is just one part of the campaign and just one part of the individual.

Frankly, with all of the organizations that have endorsed me: the policemen, the fireman, the teachers, other organized labor unions; it hasn’t been an issue. And as I go door to door and I talk to people and they ask me questions about running as a gay man I tell them exactly what I told you—it’s a part of my campaign, it’s not the cornerstone. But I am looking forward to going down to Jefferson City and breaking down some of the stereotypes.

You know Rep. Mott-Oxford has done that for women, Sen. Justus has done that for women but I would like the opportunity to go down to Jeff City and show some of the conservative Democrats that being an out, open gay man is perhaps something different than what the stereotype is that they know.

CM: When it comes to MONA, the Anti-Bullying Bill and other GLBT legislation, how do you see about getting these out of committee and up for a vote? We haven’t had that yet.

MC: I think that comes down to your effectiveness as a legislator. I think one of the issues in this race is whose going to be the most effective person in Jefferson City; not to just advance our goals, but to advance the goals of the district, south city, the state of Missouri—progressive causes as well. So I’ve really made a conscious effort over the life of the campaign—which has been about a year—to meet some of the Democratic leadership, to donate to some of their campaigns, to meet with some of the other individuals who are candidates presently; to talk to other elected representatives from some suburban and rural Democratic districts. For example, Rep. Jeff Roorda down in Jefferson City—just to kind of let them know hey, these are some of the issues that are going to be important to me and as an urban legislator I want you to know that I want to talk to you about rural issues.

And I think what they are going to find out and what Rep. Roorda has found out is that a lot of the issues that I see as urban and issues he sees as rural are actually the same issues and we can work together to advance the cause. A key question will be who is in charge of the House. If the Republicans are in charge you’re right, it’s probably not going to come out of committee. If the Democrats have strong enough numbers or if the Democrats take over the House, I think it’s something that can finally get out of committee. Not just because some of the ground work I’ve already made but also because of people like Rep. Mott-Oxford that can help me carry the torch.

You know I pride myself on reaching across traditional boundaries here in south city to get support for my campaign. For example, I’ve had support from north St. Louis with Rep. Jamilah Nasheed, support from south St. Louis from Rep. Mike Vogt; there’s another candidate running in Tom Villa’s district, Jake Hummel who is a union electrician and a good guy to work with, good guy to talk to and I’ve already briefed him on the MONA issue and other issues that are facing the GLBT community.

CM: I’d like to touch on economic development—there’s not a lot you can do about gas prices in Jefferson City but there is something you can do about public transportation—what are your thoughts on improving that, especially here in St. Louis?

MC: Well I think first of all we have to approach it from a regional standpoint; so it’s not just south city, not just the city of St. Louis but it’s our metropolitan area. We have people from Illinois coming to Missouri to work and people from Missouri going to Illinois to work and you are right, the status of our public transportation is pretty sad right now.

Good, bad, right or wrong—Metro’s funds have been slashed time and time and time again. I think it’s time that we rededicate ourselves to public transportation. Personally I’d love to see some type of Metrolink station at Tower Grove Park. I think that our neighborhood, the 67th District, is one of the most densely populated districts in the city and we have a lot of people who travel all over to go to work.

More practically speaking, bus routes are the cheaper, more economically sensible reason to go to reestablish some of the routes that were recently cut. For example Kingshighway—the S. Kingshighway has always been a heavily traveled one but some of the connecting spurs were cut off. The people that rely on public transportation, I don’t want it to be a burden for them to have to use public transportation. I’d like to encourage them to use it and by making public transportation more accessible I think that’s going to happen especially as our gas rates keep going up.

So coming back to your question, I’d like to dedicate myself to pursuing additional funds for public transportation—not just for Metrolink also for Metro as well—for the bus routes.

Lucas Hudson, Editor: Along a similar vein, one thing I’ve noticed is a tremendous amount of people who get around on bicycles, scooters, mopeds and other devices—do you think there is a way we can make their journey around St. Louis a little bit easier?

MC: The short answer is yes and actually in going door to door I’ve met some cycling enthusiasts and they suggested that I contact Bike St. Louis to get their input. I’ve called them a couple of times; they haven’t gotten back to me, but the nice thing is going door to door you kind of learn this stuff anyway. You don’t have to touch base with the interest groups themselves. St. Louis has a couple of main arteries which are maintained by the state—for example, Gravois. If you go down to the Holly Hills neighborhood and take a look at Holly Hills Blvd. you’ll see there is a bike lane along the Boulevard. I’d like to see that along some of our main thoroughfares so that not just he bicyclists can use it but also that some of the mopeds or scooter bike people can use it. Because again, those bikes simply can’t travel in general traffic; they can’t go fast enough. So if we have a safe, dedicated bike lane along some of these major thoroughfares in the city I think it’s going to make accessibility to work, home and play a lot easier for those people who would like to conserve energy or just can’t afford gas prices plain and simple.

Just to point to an example, I go up Tower Grove Ave. to go to work in the Central West End every day and I’ve noticed over the past three or four months there are more and more people riding their bikes around Barnes-Jewish Hospital; riding their bikes up to St. Louis University. So it’s obviously something that’s on the rise and it’s our job as public servants to realize what the political demand of our constituency is. This district in particular is demanding dedicated avenues for bikes and scooters and that is something I would support and want to pursue.

A side note on this is that most likely it would be an Aldermanic issue, but I’m fortunate enough to have the support of my Alderwoman, Jennifer Florida; Lewis Reed and I have worked together in the past and Lewis knows my opinion when it comes to these dedicated bike lanes. In fact, if you guys don’t know, Lewis is a big fan of bikes and scooters and in fact has ridden his bike down to city hall to go to work. So the point is, there’s support there already on the Board of Alderman for that but as an elected official from our district I want to pursue it even further and see if I can work with them to make it a reality.

LH: For the first time in the revised census (2000), St. Louis is gaining population and generally speaking the people who are moving in are young, moneyed-white-progressives. But diversity is a strength in the city--how do you think we can keep diversity and mixed income levels in our neighborhoods that are being revitalized and some would say gentrified?

MC: I think part of it has to do with listening to your constituency—again going door to door. Because there has been a big push in the Tower Grove neighborhood, especially in the Tower Grove Heights neighborhood to take some of the two and four families and flip them into single homes or flip them into condominiums. On the surface that sounds great; that raises your property value, lowers your population density.

But then I think I’m the only one in the race who 1: is a home owner, 2: owns rental property and 3: has been a renter at some point in time. So I see the problem of gentrification really from all different angles. Oh my gosh, I’m a home owner, how is this going to effect my property values; oh my gosh, I’m a landlord how is this going to effect my property values and my level of service to my tenants; and then as a renter—what are you doing, pricing me out of the neighborhood? Come on!

The beautiful thing about the 67th District is that the constituency there, the voters there, the people there—they get it—they get that. Going door to door, knocking and talking to people; they don’t want single family houses all over the place. They want that diversity; they want to keep things the way they are. What they’re more concerned about is the rising level of crime, especially in that one section of the Tower Grove South neighborhood. And the beautiful thing that’s happened with that is that there’s a group of citizens; home owners, renters and rental property owners who have banned together, worked with Alderwoman Florida to propose a special taxing district—something similar to what the Southwest Garden neighborhood has done to bring in some off duty police officers.

While Grand Oak Hill and Alderwoman Florida are working to lower the population density, they are fully aware in their mind that part of the beauty of our district is their diversity and it is not my plan to turn it all into single family housing and kick people out. I like the fact that there are renters right down the street, there are owners right down the street, and there are landlords right down the street. It helps not just add to the diversity but I think the understanding of what it means to be a progressive and a Democrat to the core.

CM: I’d like to touch on healthcare. Under Gov. Blunt, thousands of people have lost their healthcare or been kicked off of the Medicaid rolls. Give me two ideas you have to address the issue of healthcare in Missouri?

MC: Just two—now wait a minute—you can’t do this to me [laughs]. Here are my thoughts on that: Primarily I’m a plaintiff lawyer which means I sue insurance companies. For the past 14-years I’ve been suing insurance companies that have been denying claims, not paying on claims, kicking people off of their rolls. So it goes without saying that any good progressive is going to do whatever they can do to try and bring those people that were kicked off of the Medicaid rolls back on to the Medicaid rolls because who are they? They are the working poor, they are children, they are single parents, people trying to make ends meet. They simply can’t afford to pay high insurance premiums.

And when the choice comes down to “Am I paying my rent or am I paying my food bill or am I paying my health insurance bill,”—they’re going to pay their rent and their food bill. And they’re working 40-60 hours a week—it’s just not there. We as a society should do better. So it goes without saying that we should put those people back on the Medicaid rolls.

Secondly, I want to take my 14-15 years of experience of battling insurance companies and try and work with them to bring down health insurance premiums. My mother is 63; her premiums are $1,800 a month. She had cancer 30-years ago. I guess they’re afraid she’s gonna get it again. There’s something called the Missouri High Risk Insurance Pool to where if your premium is x percentage points above the average, you can apply to the state program which is supposed to be much, much cheaper. We looked into that and her premiums would have been $1,200 a month and all preexisting are excluded for a year. That’s not an option for people. You can’t send somebody to work for 40-60 hours a week and tell them that’s their only option. So my mother presently doesn’t’ have any health insurance.

Suing insurance companies has given me the luxury of knowing how they train their people. They send their people to classes to learn how to deny claims, to learn how to cut claims and ask any doctor do they get paid what they’re supposed to get paid for treating people—they don’t—and the health insurance companies make money hand over fist. That’s something else I’ve gotten to discover over 15 years of suing them.

So my thoughts are sending somebody down to Jeff City who knows this information; that is willing to wrestle with the insurance companies with thoughts of, well gosh, we should be able to work together to lower rates. By lowering rates; bringing more people on to the insurance rolls; and if the insurance companies are just heck bent against that well then maybe it’s time that we pass legislation that mandates disclosure of certain information. Like, gee—how many claims did you deny this year? How much did you make? How much did you increase people’s rates and in fact, why don’t we break that down? Let’s take a look at men and women, let’s take a look at age bracket, let’s take a look at racial brackets. But my whole bit is that the insurance companies will work a little better to bring down the cost of health insurance to where people can afford to purchase it.

CM: Reproductive freedoms have been slowly whittled away here in Missouri. What is achievable? Obviously you would like to put up a dam to stop further erosion of rights but can you restore some of those reproductive freedoms as well?

MC: First off, I’m really proud to have been endorsed by NARAL. Three of us were endorsed: Miss Landmann, Mr. Beffa and myself. So there’s three candidates who are very strong on the issue. I tend to look as most issues I’m faced with, including this one, from a legal perspective. I teach up at UMSL at the Criminal Law Department and basically what I do is kind of go through the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and try to teach the students what some of these things mean. It’s an introductory course, there’s a reason for this.

So I tell the kids on the first day of class, first of all, welcome to college. You have come in here with a lot of ideas and preconceived notions of what is right and what is wrong. Some of those ideas and notions come from your parents, some come from your church, some come from your friends; quite frankly I don’t care. By the time you get out of this class I want you approach these issues from a legal perspective. And I’ll use the example of choice because I think it is a great issue to present to the students so they can understand what my point is.

When it comes to choice a lot of people base this on religious issues, morality—when it reality it’s a legal issue; it’s a constitutional issue. As a state Representative it’s not my job to try and whittle away at choice and in fact if I had my druthers I would restore some of the things that have been whittled away. I would make sure that Planned Parenthood is funded all of the time. Because they are a fantastic organization that does a good job.

I would make sure people are empowered with information that they need to prevent STD’s, to prevent pregnancy in the first place so that they’re never put in that situation. But the point is from a Constitutional issue; looking at this as a legal issue our Supreme Court has said choice is Constitutional. It has been whittled away slowly and surely. My gut tells me that slowly but surely more and more control will be turned over to the state so my thoughts are that my role as a state Representative will become more and more important to make sure that choice is protected and that those freedoms are guaranteed.

CM: Could you name two issues where you differ from Joan Landmann?

MC: Well all I really know about Joan and her platforms are what I’ve read on the Internet. There was a discussion at one point and time that Joan and I would both kind of go to Mokabe’s one day and advertise and have a meet the candidates but that hasn’t materialized.

But I would think one issue where we differ on would be the issue of crime and I’m basing this on nothing other than what I’ve read on her website and what my strengths are. My strengths, when it comes to crime, are that I’ve been practicing for 14-15 years in the criminal justice system. I’ve seen what’s worked; I’ve seen what hasn’t worked. I know what special interests are at play down in Jefferson City to impact the criminal justice system.

For example, everybody knows someone who’s got a DWI. Everybody that gets a DWI has to take a class called SATOP—Substance Abuse Traffic Offender Program. Well the SATOP providers have been very successful in Jefferson City at passing legislation to continually jack up the fees to take the SATOP course. The emphasis here is supposed to be education so this doesn’t happen again, not lining the pockets of special interests.

So getting back to the differences. I’ve seen in our system what does and doesn’t work. I’ve seen in our system special interests trying to get involved. I know that the answer isn’t “throw everybody in jail and throw away the key.” There are special courts downtown called drug courts which basically for a first time offender whose problems are caused by drugs has the option of going into drug court that removes them from the regular criminal justice system. You still get a judge, prosecutor, defense lawyer; but you also get a social worker. You have to apply to this program. If you are accepted into this program they basically set up a one to two year program where they identify what the issues really are.

And I tell you I’ve been shocked. The issues aren’t just drug addiction but with a lot of our younger clients its, I don’t know how to read or write so I can’t go out and get a job. Or even at 16 or 17, I’m homeless so this is what I’m doing to put a roof over my head.

The answer again isn’t send them to jail or even put them on probation. The answer is give them the tools that they need so they can stop the cycle of crime before it begins and prove to society that they can be productive citizens. None of my opponents have the experience or the intimate knowledge of the criminal justice system, in my opinion, to be effective to advance those types of programs.

And I’ll tell you what, it’s even worse in the juvenile system. The juveniles have two options, basically: Some faith based program that will fix the problem or DFS—but I think they use Boys and Girls Town a little too much in my opinion.

LH: In the 15th Ward questionnaire you mentioned you don’t favor local control and I just want to hear your rationale of why you think tax payers who actually pay for police officers salary--why their elected representatives—the alderman—shouldn’t have a say in how to control the police force and what detriment that will cause to the police especially since it’s already been stated that the police pension bill will stay in Jeff City?

MC: A couple of things. First off, I’ve said from the beginning and in all actually I even told this to [aldermanic board] president Reed when we met about this issue that I think the real concern with the Board of Alderman is the budget plain and simple. Presently, the way the system is set up the police board—it’s my understanding—hands the city the budget and there’s not much that the board can do about it. Now in theory the Mayor is on the police board, the Mayor does have some input on what goes into the budget. But the Mayor is just one vote on the entire police board. So as I told President Reed, yeah the budget is a concern and the city should have a voice on how their dollars and cents are spent. I consider that a separate issue from quote/unquote local control. I do believe that there is a way to keep things the way they are structured now and give the city a louder voice at the budget table. In my opinion that’s the best compromise that can be made. Because again, it’s a legitimate concern. How are you spending my dollars, are you doing it the right way and are you bankrupting the city?

The issue of pension I look at that as a slippery slope scenario. I don’t know the history behind the suit—the Fireman’s Pension Fund and the City—all I know is the fireman won and that the city wasn’t funding the pension fund. And because the fireman won the city had to come up with a bunch of money all at once to put into the fund; hence our tax increase last time around. I don’t want to see that happen again. There are also some other subtleties with the police officers--the way their workers compensation works that a lot of their work comp money for treatment, percentage of disability, that type of thing come out of their pension fund. So again, that’s an issue that I would want to make sure stays safe and I would worry would slide down that slippery slope.

I guess in summation our police department for the most part is pretty stable. What I mean by that—I’ve been endorsed by Local 73, the bargaining unit for the firefighters—but for decades there have been racial tensions. Those tensions, while they might exist in the police department, they’re not at the forefront, they’re not in the news once a month and I think it’s something that the police board deals with pretty well. So in other words if its not broke from that perspective, why fix it? I don’t want to shake it up. It’s been working well, let’s leave it the way it is, but let’s also work with the city on giving them a bigger place at the table to influence the budget.

LH: To me it’s an issue of either Jeff City controlling the police or the Board of Alderman controlling them. Are you advocating something in the middle where they both have co-control over police in the city?

MC: Well those are two different issues. Let’s take the ultimate extreme of what you suggested—giving the Board of Alderman control over how the city polices the city. They’re a legislative body. There are 28-alderman, 28-different wards, 28-different areas of problems/non-problems and problems that pop up and problems that go away. I’m not sure that would be the most efficient way for the police department to attack crime. Ironically enough, if you look at the state legislature—my God, there’s even more legislators than alderman so it’s got to be worse—when in reality its not because we do have the police board and the police board, quite frankly, is the one that sets the policy and the tone. We as state legislators are pretty much removed but for the police board coming to ask us different questions about different issues mostly with pension and pay. So I think the system with the police board that we have now is pretty efficient from the standpoint of how do we police the city. My fear would be that turning it over to a legislative body—any legislative body—the nature of the beast is slow, cautious and I’m not so sure that’s the best way for the police department to be structured for them to respond to the unique issues here in the city.

LH: Would there be problems with patronage?

MC: I’m not sure patronage would be an issue.

LH: OK—are you in favor of a civilian review board?

MC: Nobody’s ever asked me that question, even when we interviewed with the police officers association,; even when I talked to president Reed that didn’t’ come up; even at ward meetings no ones asked about a civilian review board…

I’d have to go back to my training as a lawyer. One of the things that I really don’t agree with and I struggle with is medical malpractice suits. You have a doctor that’s accused of medical malpractice; there’s an internal investigation that occurs within the medical community. They come out with their findings—those findings are not discoverable—so I, as a lawyer, can’t go in and go, “hey what did you all find out?” The idea is that you don’t want to crucify the doctor for making a mistake that other doctors could have made. And I don’t know if that’s good, bad, right or wrong—but I do struggle with it—because I think in some circumstances we as a society need that information to make sure that problem doesn’t happen again.

So I look at the issue of a civilian review board for the police department from the same perspective. You have cops on the street; the last thing I want them worrying about is going before a civilian review board, the press is all there; radio, newspapers; looking to crucify whoever the officer is—man, woman, black, white, Hispanic—it doesn’t matter. On the flip side though, we as a city need to know where the problems are. For example, I advised some clients on the south side where it was alleged that a pickup truck swiped six, seven, eight cars at 3 a.m. and the allegation was that is was an off duty police officer. So you make the complaint to the internal affairs and the complaint from the citizens that consulted me were, gosh Mike, we have no idea what’s going on. Nobody will tell us and quite frankly they don’t have a right to know. So there is a need in my opinion to have some form of civilian involvement reviewing issues that occur in the police force. But by the same token I don’t want to put our men and women who are risking their lives every day at further risk so that while they’re responding to a call they're worried about how this might be handled in the press.

LH: Also in the 15th Ward questionnaire you said that you like cops living near you and I wondered how to interpret that. Were you saying you were in favor of the residency rule for St. Louis police and fireman?

MC: One of the beautiful things about my campaign or just me in general is that I’ll be straight up with you and if you don’t like what I’m telling you, it doesn’t hurt my feelings, because I’d rather be honest with you, up front than have something come back to bite me. So when I went before the Fireman, their executive board and was interviewed by them and the question of residency came up and I was like you know what, I like you living here. So I’m not going to support legislation to allow you to move out. I like to have my fireman living next to me. The thing is with the police department, I told them the same thing. They have a residency situation right now and I don’t plan on changing that. And again, I was up front with them when I told them that. Their main concerns were of course the pension, local control and interestingly enough representation of their officers. There are certain circumstances where police officers are sued individually. Let’s say they were in an auto wreck while they’re just parked—police officers have to go out and hire their own lawyers and I think that’s wrong. So my comment to them was plain and simple: I think the Missouri Attorney General, since this is kind of a state organization anyway, should supply attorneys for officers who are sued individually. I know as a plaintiff lawyer that that’s just a tack that lawyers use. They sue everybody in sight. Regardless of whether that officer is at fault and I think that puts him or her at a big disadvantage, especially without having representation. So it wasn’t just my stance on local control—and I’m just speculating by the way—it wasn’t just the stance on local control, it wasn’t the stance on the issue of pension or workers compensation; I think it was the fact that I realize some other issues within the department the way they are treated—not just within city hall but also at the state level—that I’d like to address that won them over.

LH: Lastly, I want to move on to the school issue. Why do you think charter schools are a potential boon to city students and not tax credits or vouchers?

MC: I think you phrased it in a really, really appropriate way. I’m a huge fan of public education plain and simple. I graduated from a public high school, I graduated from a public undergraduate university in Kirksville, Missouri and for crying out loud I went to Fox in Jefferson County, that’s where I came from.

So in my background, the opportunity existed in our public schools for students to take advantage of. Unfortunately the city schools have lost their accreditation. I don’t want to take money away from them and give them to vouchers. I don’t think that’s right. That undermines my faith in public education and in the long run penalizes people who don’t need to be penalized.

By the same token, families here in the city need to have faith and believe that things are going to get better and one of the ways to do that quickly is to allow the option of charter schools. But I don’t think it really stops there. I mean there are of course hoops that the Charter schools have to go through to get their charter. But I think all we have to do is look at the school that closed on the north side to point to some of the problems that are there. And what are those problems? Well we as elected officials need to make sure qualified people are teaching there, number one and number two they are teaching the things that need to be taught. So that when the kids get out of the Charter schools they can either go on to higher education or go into the workforce and be productive members of society and afford their own health insurance. There also has to be better physical oversight.

Thanks for allowing me the time to interview.

LH: Thank you, Mike.