Ethics panel says source of funds for mayor's trips deserved more transparency
Kansas City should amend its ethics code to address the transparency issues that arose when a nonprofit group under Mayor Quinton Lucas' control paid for his trip to the 2023 Super Bowl, according to a new report.
The Municipal Officials and Officers Ethics Commission found nothing illegal or improper in the investigation it began after a news outlet reported that the Mayors Corps of Progress for a Greater Kansas City covered the nearly $24,000 cost of sending Lucas, an aide and his security detail to Phoenix for the game between the Chiefs and Eagles.
The nonprofit was formed years ago to provide financial support to the city's mayors in their efforts to promote economic development in Kansas City. The Mayors Corps also paid to send Lucas to the Chiefs' Super Bowl appearances in 2024 and 2025.
Lucas had been open about that. But as the Missouri Independent reported in December, the Mayors Corps was under no obligation to disclose the source of its funding.
A whistleblower told the news organization that a business advocacy group, the Heavy Constructors Association of Greater Kansas City, had donated the money to the Mayors Corps to cover the cost of the 2023 trip.
As a nonprofit formed under 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code, the Mayors Corps does not have to report the source of its funds. The ethics commission says that raises transparency issues that can undermine the public's trust in government and that other funding mechanisms should be used to pay for business trip not underwritten by taxpayers.
The Independent quoted experts who said the lack of disclosure raised ethical issues and questioned whether the donation was a violation of the city ethics code that limits the amount of gifts a city official can receive to no more than $1,000 each.
Lucas denied wrongdoing. He was on official business when he represented Kansas City at those Super Bowl appearances, he said, so the trips were not personal gifts. He said at the time that the financial support from the Mayors Corps relieved taxpayers from having to pay for those trips and others where his purpose was to promote the city.
'We've worked with lawyers, advisors and others to make sure that everything is on the up and up in connection with it,' Lucas told the Independent.
The ethics commission's May 19 report supported the mayor's interpretation, but offered suggestions on better ways to cover the cost of future trips.
Lucas said in a statement Friday that he welcomed the report's findings. But he did not say he did not promise to follow its recommendations for more transparency other than he would continue to follow city requirements.
'I thank the Ethics Commission for their work and agree with their conclusion that trip reporting complied with our rules and guidance.' he said.
The Mayors Corps of Progress is not an entity with 'a substantial interest' in the city's decision making that might benefit in trying influence city policy. If it were, then the financial support would have been an ethics violation, the commission said.
But in a memorandum addressed to City Council's Finance, Governance and Public Safety Committee, the commission said greater transparency is needed.
The mayor's trips could have been paid for through other means that would have disclosed the Heavy Constructors' involvement, the commission said.
Donors could have offered direct payments to the city that the council would have needed to approve publicly, the report said.
Payments for trips also could come from the mayor's political campaign committee, the report said. While it is illegal for an official to use campaign funds for personal use, the money can go to support an officeholders official duties. And donations to those committees are publicly disclosed, unlike those to the Mayors Corps for Progress.
Lucas' political action committee is another possible vehicle that could be used in the future, the commission said.
'The United We Stand PAC is reportedly associated with Mayor Lucas,' the report said. 'The Missouri Ethics Commission recognizes the propriety of spending campaign funds on expenses incurred by an office holder if the expenses are 'ordinary and necessary' to the performance of the office holder's duties.'
The finance committee's next meeting is on June 3. The report asked that the committee consider amending the city code's section on gifts to public officials to reflect the report's suggestions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is This Market-Thumping Stock-Split Stock a Buy Right Now With $10,000?
Stock splits might drive a lot of attention from investors, but they don't change anything fundamentally about a business. There's a thriving niche retailer that just implemented a massive stock split, which could continue its impressive historical share price gains. Instead of buying $10,000 worth of stock at once, dollar-cost averaging might be a better idea. 10 stocks we like better than O'Reilly Automotive › It's not a surprise that investors want to own companies whose stocks soar. However, an issue can arise when a business has done so well over a long period of time that its share price becomes nominally high. This makes it extremely difficult for investors with small sums of capital to buy whole shares. Here's where a stock split comes into play (more on this below). Investors looking to put money to work in the market appreciate these rare opportunities because it could lead to strong portfolio gains. There's greater excitement surrounding a particular company. There's one dominant retail stock that has climbed 509% just in the past decade, crushing the S&P 500 index. And it's up 14% in 2025 (as of June 10). Plus, it just put in place a massive stock split. Should you buy the business with $10,000 right now? It's important that investors first develop a basic understanding of how exactly a stock split works. Boards of directors and executive teams want shares of their companies to be accessible to the most investors, as this can grow demand. A stock split is conducted to artificially lower the stock price. On the flip side, there is a proportionate increase in the number of outstanding shares. On March 13, O'Reilly Automotive's (NASDAQ: ORLY) board of directors voted to approve a 15-for-1 stock split. Shareholders also approved this decision, and the stock split was implemented on June 10. O'Reilly's share price went from about $1,350 to $90 overnight. O'Reilly's outstanding share count expanded by a factor of 15, while the stock price was divided by 15. While a stock split gets a lot of attention from investors, it's worth pointing out that nothing changes with the company on a fundamental or operational basis. Undergoing a stock split won't change O'Reilly's corporate strategy, revenue, profits, or market cap. This fact can get lost in all the noise. Shares of O'Reilly have significantly outperformed the broader index in the past decade. If we zoom out further, the numbers are even more impressive. Since the company's initial public offering in April 1993, the stock has skyrocketed 56,350%. This must be a wonderful business if it has taken care of its shareholders like that. As of March 31, O'Reilly had 6,416 stores (6,298 in the U.S.) that sell aftermarket auto parts, like brakes, batteries, and motor oil, to both DIY customers and professional mechanics. What's noteworthy about this business is that demand is relatively stable. In both good and bad economic times, consumers need the stuff that O'Reilly sells. That's because having a working automobile is an urgent need for people that's not up for negotiation. People tend to drive more in robust economic times, increasing wear and tear on cars. And when there's a recession, these consumers might hold off on buying a new vehicle, instead choosing to spend money maintaining their existing cars. This supports demand. O'Reilly generates meaningful profits. It raked in $2 billion in free cash flow in 2024, before reporting $455 million in Q1. The leadership team has a history of plowing this cash into share buybacks. Just in the last five years, O'Reilly's diluted outstanding share count was reduced by 24%, which boosts earnings per share. However, the valuation isn't cheap. The stock trades at a price-to-earnings ratio of 33.3. This is 38% more expensive than the trailing-10-year average. My view is that investors should wait for a pullback before adding this outstanding company to their portfolios. If you're bullish on O'Reilly, then I can understand why a dollar-cost average strategy might make sense to buy $10,000 of this stock-split stock over the next year or so. Before you buy stock in O'Reilly Automotive, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and O'Reilly Automotive wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $655,255!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $888,780!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 999% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 174% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Neil Patel has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Is This Market-Thumping Stock-Split Stock a Buy Right Now With $10,000? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Protesting in Michigan this weekend? These are your rights
With a Washington military parade, President Donald Trump's birthday and growing opposition to immigration raids in Los Angeles, organizers have planned protests around the country for this weekend. Protests have been a part of the United States since the founding of the country. The U.S. Constitution guarantees rights, but that doesn't always mean the police will respect them or that a court will uphold them if they're violated, according to the National Lawyers Guild's "Know Your Rights — a guide for protesters." "When you are protesting or having any interaction with law enforcement, asserting your rights does not usually mean that the police will respect your rights or change how they are treating you. However, by using your rights ... you can make it harder for police to use your own statements or anything found on you during a search as evidence against you during a trial." Public property. No permit is necessary to march on public sidewalks, as long as car and pedestrian traffic is not obstructed, according to the ACLU of Michigan. Police may ask demonstrators without a permit to move to the side of a sidewalk to let people pass or for other safety reasons. According to the ACLU, the rights of protesters and organizers are strongest in "traditional public forums," such as streets, sidewalks and parks. People have the right to speak out in front of government buildings as long as they are not blocking access or interfering with operations. The rules for speech on private property are determined by the property owner. Counter-protesters also have the right to be present and voice displeasure within the vicinity of a different group, although they do not have a right to physically disrupt an event or drown out the speakers they are protesting, according to the ACLU. Some Michigan cities, including Detroit, Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids, ask large gatherings that have the potential to obstruct traffic obtain a permit with up to 70 days' notice. The National Lawyers Guild recommends trying to end law enforcement interaction as quickly as possible, as well as stating your rights out loud when asked questions. 'If a cop is speaking to you on the street, ask: 'Am I free to go?' If they say yes, you should leave, if you can do that safely. "If the cop says anything other than yes, follow up with: 'Am I being detained?' If they say anything other than yes, then say that you do not want to talk further and leave immediately,' according to NLG's Know Your Rights guide. If a police officer asks a question, a protester does not have to answer and can let the officer know they will remain silent and want to speak to a lawyer. Statements you make to people who are not police can be held against you, according to the NLG. In Michigan, police cannot ask you to provide your name or other identity information unless you have been detained on reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. This right is not the same in every state. Police are allowed to pat down the outside of your clothing without consent, but they need your permission or a warrant to search beyond that, according to NLG's guide. To decline a search, the guide recommends using the standard legal phrasing, 'I do not consent.' Michigan's ACLU recommends asking for a lawyer immediately, remaining silent and not signing or agreeing to anything without a lawyer. If a defendant hasn't hired a lawyer, they can ask for a court-appointed public defender if they can't afford it, according to Michigan Legal Help from the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan State Bar Association. If you are arrested, you will be searched as part of the arrest process, according to NLG. Police officers may lie to you about having evidence, deals to drop charges, overstating penalties for crimes, the timeline of your detention, and whether they are recording, according to the guide. Lying to a government agent is sometimes a criminal offence, while remaining silent until speaking to a lawyer is not, according to the NLG. When in a public space, people have the right to photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and police, according to Michigan's ACLU. On private property, property owners may set their own rules. Police may not confiscate or demand to view photos or videos without a warrant. They may not delete data under any circumstances, according to the ACLU. Police may order citizens to stop recording if they are "truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations, but video recording from a safe distance is not interfering," according to the ACLU. [ Help us make the Free Press better for you. ] According to Michigan's ACLU, police may not disperse a protest unless there is "clear danger of a riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety." "Protesters must receive a clear and detailed notice of a dispersal order, including how much time they have to disperse, consequences for failing to disperse, and what exit route they can follow before they may be arrested or charged with any crime," according to the ACLU. Officers must give "reasonable opportunity to comply, including sufficient time and a clear exit path," according to the ACLU. The ACLU of Michigan recommends getting contact information of witnesses, taking photos of injuries, and writing down everything you can remember, including officers' names, badge and patrol car numbers. With this information, you can file a written complaint to a civilian complaint board, police department or agency, according to the ACLU. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Protest rights in Michigan: What to know ahead of No Kings events
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Just Revoked California's EV Rules. How Much Is California To Blame?
President Donald Trump just revoked California's permission to enforce its nation-leading clean-car rules — and Mary Nichols understands why. "No one likes being regulated," she told me ahead of Thursday's Oval Office signing ceremony. Nichols knows that better than almost anyone. As head of California's Air Resources Board for 17 years, she brought the world's biggest automakers to heel using the state's unique authority to go further than the federal government in setting vehicle emissions standards. It's those same automakers who lobbied Trump to "rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating California's electric vehicle mandate once and for all," as Trump put it Thursday. It didn't have to get to this point. California officials had been in talks with automakers prior to the November election about how to keep them on board, but the state overplayed its hand, Nichols said. "Many people were acting on the assumption that it was going to be the Democrats continuing in power," she said. "So the state felt like they had all the cards in their hand, and then after the election, it was pretty hard to reset the conversation." To hear Nichols tell it, California may have gone too far this time in nudging the industry to ever-higher sales of zero-emission vehicles. The rules would have required automakers to hit increasing percentages — 35 percent by model year 2026 and 68 percent by model year 2030 — before reaching 100 percent of new-car sales in 2035. Maybe that would have worked if it were just about California. But a dozen other states are signed on to California's targets, and they have been slower and less generous with incentives and EV charging infrastructure. Where California has more than a quarter of its new car sales coming from EVs, New Jersey is at 15 percent, and New York is under 12 percent, according to the industry's latest figures. "They were definitely having issues with the California program because they didn't think they could meet the sales numbers in the mandate, especially [Gov. Gavin] Newsom's target of nothing but ZEVs with a deadline attached to it," Nichols said. "That was scary, and even the interim targets were going to be hard to meet." The pendulum has swung against California before: The George W. Bush administration was the first to attempt to deny California's permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require automakers to sell increasing percentages of zero-emission vehicles, and Trump went further in his first term by attempting to revoke the state's already-issued authority. But Republicans had never resorted to doing it through Congress, via an untested maneuver that congressional watchdogs have warned is likely illegal but that still drew 35 Democratic votes in the House and one in the Senate (Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), in the tradition of Detroit's John Dingell). It's a far cry from the bipartisan consensus that reigned when President Richard Nixon famously signed the Clean Air Act, which set federal air pollution levels for the first time but gave California permission to continue going further, owing to its decade-plus of vehicle emissions rules aimed at the smoggy Los Angeles basin. The automakers have been steadily lobbying against the rules since then, with a brief ceasefire from 2009-16, when ten automakers and the United Auto Workers signed a nonaggression pact in President Barack Obama's Rose Garden with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the EPA. That it happened at the same time that the federal government was taking an equity stake in General Motors was no coincidence, said Nichols, who helped broker the pact. "They saved them from bankruptcy," she said. California has less recourse this time around. Where Newsom signed deals in 2019 with Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, BMW and Volvo to abide by the state's rules even in the event of federal cancellation, he now only has Stellantis, which signed a separate agreement last year that goes through model year 2030. And several of the state's allies are peeling off. California had 12 other states signed on to follow its lead as of last year, but it now has 10, after Republican-led Virginia dropped out and Vermont delayed enforcement by 19 months. And Democrats are getting cold feet, too: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed an executive order in April delaying enforcement, and Democratic lawmakers in New York introduced a bill this year to delay their participation by two years. (California and the other 10 states immediately sued Thursday to preserve the emissions standards.) "If it was only California, I think [automakers] wouldn't have been as eager to jump in on the federal level and work with the Republicans, but it's the fact it's the other states that had the California standards that were killing them, especially New York," Nichols said. That echoes the automakers' argument. "The problem really isn't California," John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a statement after the Senate's vote last month to overturn the rules. "It's the 11 states that adopted California's rules without the same level of readiness for EV sales requirements of this magnitude."
