August 28th, 2006 Hearing & Meeting

The August 28th Hearing and Council Meeting were short. However, a few things happened that are worth mentioning. To start with, the official count of attendance was 168. That does not mean much since this was two meetings, one, a Public Hearing on the property tax rate of the City, and the other a Special City Council Meeting. One interesting point to me is that the City has still not added the time of that Council Meeting to the posting on the city website, Nor did they ever mention that it was also a Public Hearing on the City Tax Rates. As of August 29th, 2006 at 11:00AM this information is still not there.

This should not be an issue in the future> As I understand it the Order issued on August 28th, 2006 by Judge Sherry requires we hold all future City Council Meetings (regularly scheduled, special, etc) at the Community Center, it also references the 24 hour notice requirement and mentions the City's Internet site as well. I am waiting to see an official copy of the order. When I do I will let everyone know the specifics. However, so far it sounds to me like the City is now required to post meeting information on the website.

First, I found it interesting that though there was a Public Hearing on the Tax Rate scheduled to be held that evening, there was no microphone setup for residents to use to make comments which is what public hearings are for. They did ask for residents concerns on the Tax Rate and a few people did ask some questions (without the benefit of a microphone). For the record there were no negative comments made at that time directed at the Mayor or anyone else.

One comment I found interesting was when a resident asked how we could have projected lower revenues from residential property taxes when the tax rate has remained the same and most people's assessed values have gone up? I wonder the same thing myself. The Mayor answered that we have alot of vacant houses. I am not sure what she was getting at but occupied or not the tax rate remains the same. I guess it is possible that revenues could be lower due to uncollected property taxes, but I would be surprised if I found out that those projections took that into account. If anyone knows why our property tax revenues are down, I would appreciate it if you let us know.

The hearing concluded with no change made in the City property tax rates.

Then the meeting was called to order, with all elected Council Members present. First order of Business was the Mayor's nomination of George "Blondon" (not sure of the spelling at this time) for the vacant ward 3 seat. The appointment was voted down, 4-3. I don't know anything about Mr. "Blondon" so I could not say if this would be a good appointment or not. However, the same could be said for the Council Members who voted against the appointment. They had been given no information on the man, nor had they been given an opportunity to meet him. Personally, if I was a Councilman faced with an appointment of someone I had no information on I would oppose the appointment as well, regardless of who made it.

The Next issue that came up was the matter of paying the bills. This was where all the "fun" of the meeting happened.

Among the bills was one for $4000.00 from Attorney Rudman who has been representing Mayor Ann Purzner in the Sunshine Law case. It is my understanding that the city originally received this bill before the second day of the hearings, so I assume it covers his pre-trial work and the first day in the courtroom.

Several Councilman opposed paying this bill. The Mayor claimed several times that the bills have to be paid. She also claimed that a vote called to pay all the bills with the exception of Mr. Rudman's bill and an $800.00 bill from a consultant would not be valid. First She claimed this was because it would require five votes, second she claimed this was because, as she repeatedly said, the bills have to be paid.

The Mayor is correct when she suggests that the Mayor can pay the bills without a vote of the Council. However, that only applies to items that were either specifically budgeted for, that the City is contractually obligated for, or for something that approved by a vote of the Council in advance.

There was never a vote of the council to authorize Mr. Rudman to Represent Mayor Purzner in this or any other case. The Mayor is of course entitled to her own legal council, as is anyone else, but she is not entitled to having the residents of Overland pay for the lawyer without the approval of the City Council.

She again made the erroneous statement that it would take a "5-3" vote in regard to passing the motion made to pay all but the above two bills. We have covered this issues at length here. However, in this case it is irrelevant since Councilman Sellers voted Yes, along with Councilman May, Councilman O'Connell, Councilman Corcoran, and Councilman Schneider on the motion to pay all the bills with the exception of Mr. Rundman's, and the consultant's bill. That would be a 5 vote majority. Though it is not required, it is still 5 votes so what can we expect from the Mayor on this issue? My guess would be a veto.

However, the Mayor would still need a vote of the Council to be legally authorized to pay those bills and she is not likely to get a majority to approve it. She could try to pay it anyway (which would unethical, let alone illegal I believe), but I seriously doubt our Treasurer would sign the checks (our Treasurer still has not been paid by the Mayor btw).

Mr. Owensby was strangely silent on the issue of not having a vote of the Council to authorize Mr. Rudman to represent Mayor Purzner. I find it strange because he argued against paying Mr. Herman's bill for the same case on the same basis.

However, in my opinion Mr. Owensby was mistaken when it comes to Mr. Herman's bill. The first part of his argument was that Mr. Herman should not be representing an opposing party against the city. I have written about Mr. Herman's actions in that court case at length. He was representing the City, not the plaintiffs. Mr. Schoch (spelling?) was representing the Plaintiffs.

The second part of Mr. Owensby's argument seemed to me to be that there was no Vote of the City Council to authorize Mr. Herman to represent the City that case. There is no need for such a vote in my opinion. Mr. Herman has a contract with the city to be our City Attorney. That contract includes provisions for him to represent the City's interests in court.

In the end, the 5 to 2 vote authorized paying Mr. Herman's bill and specifically did not authorize paying Mr. Rudman's bill or the consultant's bill.

I wonder what Mr. Rudman will do now? Will he continue to represent the Mayor in this matter? Will he file suit against her personally (there is no contract with the City so he would not be able to successfully sue the City of Overland on this issue)? He was the Mayor's original pick to replace Mr. Herman, so I guess we will just have to wait and see.

The meeting ended shortly after votes were taken on two proposed ordinances. One to provide a share of the property tax revenues to continue to fund the Police Pension, the Other to set the city tax rate, which remained the same as last year.