The Mayor's Selective Reading

Mayor Purzner has put a new message on her website. There she claims that the reason we are in court over the Sunshine Law is because her hands are tied. Overland Ordinance 110.150 states that Council Meetings are held at City Hall. She says that the authority to move the meetings rests with the City Council and that she could do nothing about it without a vote of the Council. She also said that she took an oath to uphold the Ordinance and thus cannot violate 110.150's requirement to hold the meeting in City Hall. She also claims this decision of the court will have far reaching implications for cities throughout Missouri.

First of all, there are no wide implications at all. The provision of the Sunshine Law in question is simple, you have to accommodate the anticipated attendance of a meeting. The Mayor's Lawyer had said this is impossible. Well, I think anyone could look at the fact that every regularly scheduled City Council Meeting since the meeting where the Mayor took office has exceeded the limits of the Council Chambers and be able to reasonably assume that this will happen at the next meeting as well. However, I am applying common sense, reason, and logic to the situation, and based on what I saw in the courtroom so far, I believe the Mayor's Attorney is not familiar with those concepts.

The Mayor says she has to uphold Ordinance 110.150. OK, but what about Ordinance 110.130? That would be the ordinances that requires that the Mayor "be active and vigilant in enforcing all laws and ordinances for the government of the City" (Note: the use of the word "for" rather then the word "of"). Well, since the City is not empowered to enact Law, I think it is safe to say that this Ordinance would be referring to all Laws, including the Missouri State variety like the Sunshine Law. Oh, and Wait, Suzijax over at the OVCC added another great point. What about Ordinance 140.090?

SECTION 140.090: ACCESSIBILITY OF MEETINGS

Each meeting shall be held at a place reasonably accessible to the public, and of sufficient size to accommodate the anticipated attendance by members of the public, and at a time reasonably convenient to the public, unless for good cause such a place or time is impossible or impractical. Every reasonable effort shall be made to grant special access to the meeting to handicapped or disabled individuals.

(Ord. No. 2004-58 §1, 9-28-04)

Sounds to me like we have an Ordinance that mirrors the Sunshine Law Requirements at issue here exactly. So why is it the Mayor will choose to follow one Ordinance but not two others?

We have covered this issue several times in the past. However, it does not appear to be sinking in at City Hall so I will cover it again (Suzijax also covered it on OVCC so maybe the the additional voice will allow this simple issue to be heard). In regard to needing a Council Vote, there have been several votes to move the Meetings. I am confident that the Mayor is aware of the vote to move the meetings to the Community Center at the July 10th, 2006 regularly scheduled Council Meeting because she choose to Veto that same vote and presented her veto message at the August 14th 2006 regularly scheduled Council Meeting (Something that did NOT please Judge Sherry when she heard about it). So Mayor Purzner, there was a vote of the Council to move the meeting to the Community Center and you chose the veto it. Now what excuse will you offer for this?

The Mayor closes with:

"I want to make it perfectly clear that I will fully abide with what the court orders in every aspect and detail"

That's great Mayor Purzner. It is unfortunate that you will not take the same stance when it comes to the entirety of our Ordinances, let alone State Statute / Law or even the U.S. Constitution. A reasonable Mayor who actually cared about the community would have contacted the City Attorney on the Matter. If you had, I imagine you would have been directed to the other Ordinances detailed above (and reminded that State Law trumps Municipal Ordinance) and it would have likely been explained that not only could you move the meetings from the Council Chambers, you are required to do so by Law.

Mayor Purzner, you are not an Attorney, nor are any of your supporting Council Members. We are Paying an Attorney to be the City Attorney in order to avoid such unnecessary litigation costs. PLEASE USE OUR ATTORNEY!! We cannot afford for you to continue to arrogantly assume you know it all. When I think of the accusations you made about poor decisions made by the previous administration resulting in many expensive lawsuits I cannot help but laugh. I predict you will exceed the litigation costs of the entire 8 years of the previous administration before the end of 2006 if you continue to refuse to consult with the City Attorney. PLEASE let the man do his job, we cannot afford for you to play Perry Mason anymore (and Mark Brown is no closer to being an attorney then you are so stop following advice on such matters as well).

Mayor Purzner, I would be happy to sit down and discuss these issues with you. Perhaps a fresh perspective from someone else is what you need. Feel free to contact me at overlandsailor@aol.com and I will do my best to work around you schedule so that we can meet and try to resolve some of these issues.