Mayor Purzner's ignorance of the Lawlikely get Overland, MO. sued (again)

At the August 9th, 2006 Special Budget Committee Meeting the Mayor, Chairman Knode, and Councilman Owensby ensured that the promotions, previously approved at the June 26th, 2006 Executive Session were removed from the General Revenue Budget Proposal. They have also notified the officers that the promotions were rescinded and stopped paying those officers their increased pay-rates related to those promotions. There is nothing legal about this action and it opens Overland up to at least 4 lawsuits that the city cannot win. What follows is what happened, you be the judge.

At the August 9th, 2006 Special Budget Committee Meeting for Overland, Missouri an issue came up that was of concern to me. At issue was a June 26th, 2006 Executive Session where the City Council, the Mayor and the Chief of Police considered 4 promotions of Overland Police Officers.

According to the publicly available section of the minutes covering the vote on the promotions at that executive session:

"Councilman May made a motion, seconded by councilman Corcoran that the promotions stand since the Ordinances and handbook were followed. The Vote was: May - Yes; Sellers - No; Corcoran - Yes; Schneider - Yes; Knode - No; O'Connell - Yes; Owensby - No. Motion carried."

At the July 10th, 2006 (regularly scheduled) City Council Meeting, The Council voted to approve the minutes of the June 26th, 2006 Executive Session. Councilman Owensby raised only one objection. That was that a motion he made to "reduce to writing" was made before, not after, the vote quoted above. There was some dispute over that. However No other objections were raised. The minutes of the June 26th Executive Session were approved by a 4-3 vote, with Councilmen Owensby, Sellers, and Knode opposing. Motion carried.

The police officers in question were promoted based on the vote of the June 26th, 2006 Executive Session. They were moved up in rank and have since received at least one paycheck that was based on their new pay rate resulting from the promotions (regardless of any potential criminal or ethical issues here I am confident that the city will likely see EOE and Wage & Hour complaints filed by these officers as well as civil lawsuits).

At the August 9th, 2006 Special Budget Committee Meeting, the woman from the city office who has been handling the budget proposals made mention that the pay increases had been removed from the budget as she was instructed to do by Mayor Purzner.

This resulted in some discussion on the matter where first Mayor Purzner suggested that the measure could not have carried in that executive session because it did not have a five vote majority. Councilman May pointed out that City Attorney Robert Herman had previously told the Council that a 5 vote Majority was not necessary for issues such as this. Councilman Owensby stated publicly at that point "Mr Herman is not our City Attorney" which was clearly inaccurate considering Overland Ordinance 112.98-19 that names Robert Herman as our city Attorney. Since no one has been properly appointed to replace him he remains our city attorney (based on MSO Chapter 77, 77.370 - section 5).

As a side note: At the August 14th, 2006 City Council Meeting the Mayor communicated 5 veto messages to the council. I am curious why the Mayor would veto measures that she says did not / could not pass and be enacted without a 5 vote majority. Could it be that the Mayor actually realizes that this is NOT required by Statute or Ordinance?

Back to the meeting:

Then, Councilman Owensby publicly stated at the August 9th, 2006 Special Budget Committee Meeting that the Mayor Vetoed the measure (referencing MSO Chapter 77, 77.280) concerning the promotions vote at the June 26th, 2006 Executive Session.

That statute requires that a veto be entered into the meeting journal (the minutes). There is no record of a veto in the publicly accessible section of the minutes from that meeting. As mentioned above, those minutes from the June 26th 2006 Executive Session were voted on and approved at the July 10th, 2006 Regularly Scheduled City Council Meeting. Neither Councilman Owensby, Mayor Purzner, nor anyone else raised a issue about a missing reference to a Veto in those minutes.

At issue here is Overland Ordinance 110.060 Where it says in part:

..that should he/she neglect or refuse to sign any ordinance and return the same with his/her objections, in writing, at the next regular meeting of the Council, the same shall become a law without his/her signature. (He or she being a reference to the Mayor)

Though this vote was not an ordinance it did concern the expenditure of funds, which it has been said, allows the Mayor to veto the measure. The Mayor showed at the August 14th, 2006 City Council Meeting that see understands the requirement to communicate vetoes to the council before the next regularly scheduled council meeting when she did just that with several council measures that were voted on and passed at the July 10th, 2006 Council Meeting. She communicated these vetoes even though none of those measures were ordinances.

The July 10th, 2006 Council Meeting was a regularly scheduled Council Meeting. Furthermore, sources say that the City Clerk had still not received any written notice of a veto action (concerning the promotions measures passed at the June 26th 2006 Executive Session) from the Mayor prior to the August 14th, 2006 City Council Meeting.

Sources say that the Mayor instructed a city office employee to remove the promotions from the Police portion of the General Revenue Budget Proposal as the measure to approve them was vetoed.

This matter is of great concern to me because there are Statutes, Laws and Ordinances that govern how our elected officials are to conduct business to ensure that things are done properly and ethically. If our Elected officials were allowed to "make up the rules as they go along" there would be no way for the citizens to ensure that the government was run ethically or fairly.

There is no official record of this veto. Chapter 77 requires that the veto be entered into the minutes, and there is not reference to it in those minutes. Further, those minutes were approved without an issue raised about the lack of a veto reference at the July 10th, 2006 Council Meeting.

Since there is no reference to the Veto happening at the June 26th 2006 Executive Session and there was no objection raised that it was not in the minutes it can be reasoned (as well as legally argued) that the veto never happened at that meeting.

Since there was no communication of a veto presented to the council at or before the July 10th, 2006 meeting it can be reasoned (as well as legally argued) that this veto never happened at all.

As a result, officers who received promotions and pay increases legally have had them taken away without any official proceeding, disciplinary action, or a vote of the City Council. They should never have had those promotions and raises pulled, and have clear and easily winnable cases in regard to Wage and Hour Labor Law in my opinion. Further, they would likely have little trouble winning a civil suit against the city based on the cities failure to follow its own policies and procedures, ordinances, and state statutes.

It does not take a law degree to see that this is wrong, all it takes is common sense and a conscience.