ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Take the current dispute between Reed, the president of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, and Mayor Tishaura O. Jones, over what the U.S. Department of Treasury does or does not say about how money from the American Rescue Plan can be spent.

Jones, following the advice of the interim city counselor, the city’s federal lobbyist and its accounting consultant, believes the money that Reed seeks to spend on economic development on the city’s north side falls outside the federal regulations and could trigger a city audit, or a clawback of the funds, if they are spent improperly.

Here’s how the city’s longtime federal lobbyist described the situation of the city’s Estimate and Apportionment Board: “In my judgment it would be very foolish to challenge the U.S. Treasury,� James Brown said. “Everyone that I know of is following these treasury guidelines to the T, and they are not taking this kind of risk.�

Reed brushes off Brown’s advice, and that of interim city counselor Matt Moak, and that of outside accountant Ruben Brown. He ignores the opinions of Jones and Comptroller Darlene Green. This is nothing new. It’s a repeat of Reed’s attempts to push through airport privatization on behalf of his donor friends more than a year ago. Then, a different city counselor issued a letter suggesting that what Reed was proposing ran afoul of the city charter as well as the Missouri Constitution. So what did Reed do? He turned to private lawyer Elkin Kistner (a former assistant city counselor), just as he has this time, to produce a letter that supports his point of view.

But that’s not all. Reed also wrote the Federal Aviation Administration, in effect asking it not to do what Mayor Lyda Krewson might ask them to do, without checking with him first. “I further request, that if any person or city official seeks to withdraw the Preliminary Application, that you inform me of the same before taking any action so that I may address such an action,� Reed wrote last summer.

Reed wrote that letter while he was pushing the airport privatization money grab led by lobbyist Travis Brown. He’s the founder of the Pelopidas firm that represented the interests of libertarian campaign donor and chess enthusiast Rex Sinquefield. At the time, Brown was embroiled in a yearslong legal battle with his former business partner (and ex-wife), in which she credibly accused him of “l´Ç´Ç³Ù¾±²Ô²µâ€� the company. None of that seemed to bother Reed at the time.

A couple of months later, Brown’s firm had collapsed right along with the airport privatization scheme, Sinquefield cut ties with the lobbyist, and, not long after that, Reed lost his third race for mayor, this time to Jones.

I bring all this up because when it comes to deciding how to spend federal money, particularly when there is a dispute between Reed and Jones, Reed’s pattern of judgment should figure into the equation. Last week, the dispute between Travis Brown and Rachel Keller finally came to its likely close, with the Missouri Court of Appeals ruling in Keller’s favor and awarding her $7.5 million.

Brown’s fall from grace is complete. But what about all the folks who were willing to go to bat for him, simply because he represented a man with deep pockets? There’s a reason that both finalists in the mayoral race happened to be women who opposed airport privatization. Voters trusted their judgment.

Jones came out on top, and now, after allowing Reed’s bill to go through so she could get needed aid to renters and other people living in poverty, she has to decide what to do about the section that her advisers say is flawed. For what it’s worth, Reed himself gave her a path forward. In the same meeting in which the city’s lobbyist clearly suggested that part of the bill is flawed, Reed told the mayor that even if he is right, he trusts the mayor and her administration to administer the funds in a legal way. “An appropriation does not require spending,� Reed said. “I have all the confidence in the world in the mayor’s office and her administration.�

Now that the Board of Aldermen has sent the bill back to her, Jones has a simple way to solve the dispute. Follow Reed’s advice: Don’t spend any money that advisers say might create problems with the federal government. If the president of the Board of Aldermen says it’s OK to ignore the wording in the bills he forwards, then do so. Spend the money on direct pandemic aid (which Reed opposed) immediately. Then prepare new legislation to direct money to the north side that key city advisers — and maybe even Kistner — agree will pass muster.

“My recommendation would be to defer and take this section out,� Brown, the city’s federal lobbyist, said, offering the advice Reed wouldn’t take, but Jones should. “There will be other opportunities to discuss this issue down the road.�