The Sunshine Law Case 8/18/06

I was in attendance at the August 18th Hearing at the St. Louis County Court House concerning the Sunshine Law and the City of Overland. I was going to wait until after Monday's hearing to post about the case.

However, from my prospective, Sweetpickles seems to have mischaracterized a few things (not to mention leave a few more out) in her recent posts on the subject (quoted and linked below). So I thought I would respond to her post with my own eyewitness account of the events:

Posted by Sweetpickles on August 20, 2006, 12:24 am:
Phase 1 is the testimony of the city clerk, the inconsistencies were so obvious that the judge dismissed that part of the case, and didn't even need to hear Ann's witness' dismissed in Ann's favor.Let's talk about the residents that were in attendance at court. Once again they brought food in court and sat and ate the whole time, they did not turn off their cell phones { BIG sign when entering the courtroom}{ also the bailiff instructs you before the judge enters} if all that is not bad enough the bailiff had to warn them several times to quite down, so bad that the judge threatened to clear the courtroom.Very disrespectful. What are they thinking, I guess that because the chief lets them get away with it at the meetings, they can just do it anywhere they please. (source)

So lets take this one at a time then shall we?

"Phase 1 is the testimony of the city clerk, the inconsistencies were so obvious that the judge dismissed that part of the case and didn't even need to hear Ann's witness' dismissed in Ann's favor"

Odd, you seem to be the only one that heard her "dismiss" the motion for sanctions. What I heard was that they agreed to hear the City Clerks testimony on that, as well as the original case itself because she was scheduled to go on vacation.

As I saw it, the judge was inclined to deal with the motion for sanctions at a later time, so don't worry Donna, I am sure we will see "Ann's witnesses" on the subject (Talk about disrespectful, shouldn't that be Mayor Purzner's witnesses, come now, please show some respect for the office).

Speaking of which, who would that have been? The only ones I saw in attendance were Councilmen Knode, Sellers and Owensby, as well as Mrs. Knode, Donna Dill, and I believe the other woman there's name is Courtney. So, which one those present were going to testify on the motion that was first raised at the beginning of the trial that day?

"Let's talk about the residents that were in attendance at court. Once again they brought food in court and sat and ate the whole time"

OK lets. First, if by food you mean mints / cough drops then yes some residents were guilty. However, personally I would rather people keep their throats soothed then have to listen to a courtroom full of coughing. I was one of those residents who was partaking in the evil mint too, so I guess it is off to the clink for me.

Now lets talk about the non-residents. Donna, when you mentioned residents you were obviously not referring to yourself. Yet you were chewing though the entire case. I could not see what you might be eating, it could have been gum I imagine. However, I find it interesting that you take issue with "food" in the court room when you so obviously did the same yourself.

Heck, when one resident quietly asked for a mint, another passed it to him and Mrs. Knode made the "shame, shame" sign at us with her fingers. Did she make the "shame, shame" sign at you as well?

"they did not turn off their cell phones { BIG sign when entering the courtroom}{ also the bailiff instructs you before the judge enters}"

Wrong again. I was there remember. Nearly everyone, including myself turned off their phones. One resident (that would be one, not "they") realized she forgot about her phone a little while into the case and turned it off. When she opened it, it played one of those silly little songs. One person made a mistake, that was it.

"if all that is not bad enough the bailiff had to warn them several times to quite down,"

This did NOT happen, or at least I, who was sitting a about 10 feet closer to the Bailiff then you, never heard it. Feel free to Libel the residents all you want, but I am sorry they were, for the most part very quiet. There were however some whispered conversations whenever the Judge called for the lawyers to approach the bench.

Since we cannot hear what they are doing during those discussions several people engaged in quiet conversations when the attorneys approached the bench. Take for example your conversations with Mrs Knode, or Mrs. Knode's regular leans forward to whisper to her husband. I have no problem with those discussions and neither did the bailiff. The Bailiff did turn and look at the crowd once or twice but he never spoke to us that I heard.

The Attorney Representing the Mayor, was using his tactic of asking the same question over and over again making small changes in wording and the dates and referring to several documents entered into the record simply as "it". Eventually, he did successfully confuse the 80+ year old citizen who was testifying. And when he then tried to suggest that the Man was not credible because of a simple mistake that the lawyer engineered the crowd did gasp in frustration.

"so bad that the judge threatened to clear the courtroom."

The judge did threaten to clear the courtroom. She mentioned how she understood the crowds frustration but that they had to remain silent or she would be forced to clear the room. She herself seemed frustrated about the Mayor's Attorney's handling of the case several times. At least once on Approach she appeared to me to be chewing him out. But, not being able to hear what was said I can only speculate on that. The bottom line is that this was once understandable instance (understandable even to the judge) not "several times".

"Very disrespectful."

What I found very disrespectful was someone reading the newspaper and doing her crossword puzzle book rather than paying attention to what was going on. Seriously, how can we take your account of what happened seriously when you spent so much of the time with various distractions rather then paying attention to what was going on in the court room?

"What are they thinking, I guess that because the chief lets them get away with it at the meetings, they can just do it anywhere they please"

Well, ignoring the partisan hackery of the above statement I would like to point out that you have the responsible party wrong. It is the Chairman's responsibility to manage the meeting. It is the chairman who directs the Chief of Police to remove people as needed. So, the Chairman, who happens to be Mayor Purzner is the party you should blame for these imaginary problems.

If you want to take issue with Chief Herron and his conduct at the meetings. Take issue with the way he has stepped up and asked the crowd to quiet down without getting the floor from the Mayor or direction from the Mayor to do so. It appears to me the man just gets tired of waiting for direction on such issues and acts to control the situation. The person who "lets them get away with it" is the Chairman of the Meeting, Ann Purzner, please take the issue up with her.

But wait, there is more:

Posted by Sweetpickles on August 20, 2006, 12:35 am:
Thank you, you are so correct. Not all that was done is right. I agree, I would have done a lot differently.Herman is not authorized to represent the city in this matter, no vote was taken. He is guiding Beavis, he is constantly slipping notes in front of him, and when Dody testified he admitted Beavis {Schock} was recommended by Butthead {Herman}, so Beavis and Butthead are working together, so maybe Beavis should pay Butthead.What do you think?? (source)

"Herman is not authorized to represent the city in this matter, no vote was taken."

Ordinance #112.98-19 names Mr. Herman the City Attorney. In that ordinance, under Extraordinary Duties he is supposed to represent the City and City Employees and Elected Officials in court. So I am not sure a vote is needed. Since No one has been properly appointed he remains the City Attorney as per Chapter 77, Specifically 77.370 item #5. However, there was no vote for Mr. Rudman to be authorized to represent the Mayor. The Mayor is of course entitled to her own legal council, so long as she pays for it herself. I assume his bills are going to her?

"He is guiding Beavis, he is constantly slipping notes in front of him, and when Dody testified he admitted Beavis {Schock} was recommended by Butthead {Herman},"

Well Considering The Resident's Attorney's resume I don't think he needs help from Mr. Herman. He has extensive Municipal law experience. Oh, and Mr. Herman, recommended a good attorney to former Mayor Dody and the 5 other Residents of Overland who filed this suit. Wow, that's damning. How dare someone actually recommend another professional to a man he has known for years.

Also Donna, could we maybe get away from the childish references? I know you are certainly old enough to know better.

"so Beavis and Butthead are working together, so maybe Beavis should pay Butthead.What do you think?? "

I think you have an agenda all your own, which prevents you from seeking the truth of what is going on (when your not reading the Newspaper or doing crossword puzzles of course).

Mr. Herman only cross examined one witness on the 18th. That was after the Mayor's Attorney asked a 21 year veteran of the Overland Police force if he had done anything to inflate the count at the meeting or if he had been asked to do so by anyone (which of course he did not).

Mr. Herman asked him specifically if he inflated the count. The officer said no. He asked if he had been directed to do so by anyone. the officer said no. Now why would Mr. Herman do this? Because as the City Attorney it is his job. He asked the questions that needed to be on the record to help insulate the city for more potential lawsuits, and that is all he did.

As for the count. Remember, the Officers are ALWAYS taking these counts. The do so to ensure that the city does not violate fire code capacity limits. They are not there to count heads for a court case that would never had to have happened if the Mayor of Overland would simply follow State Law.

But wait, there is even more:

Posted by Sweetpickles on August 20, 2006, 1:03 pm:
Where were you at when the bailiff said quite, on several occasions. Where were you when the judge looked and pointed to that side of the room and said quite or I'll clear the courtroom. (source)

Where were we? In the real world Sweetpickles, where in the cosmos were you? I know I was actually paying attention to what was going on in the courtroom, that is why I have said that it never happened.

And the judge did NOT "point" at anyone. As I have already stated, she did say that she understood our frustration (which could easily be taken as in referene to Mayor Purzner's Attorney), and she did say that we needed to remain quiet or she would have to clear the courtroom. However she did NOT point at anyone, nor did she direct her comments specifically to one side of the courtroom or the other (though she did make them right after the one side gasped in exasperation at the actions of the Mayor's Attorney).

I wonder how the judge will feel when she reads your mischaracterizations of her courtroom and her actions? I know if I was the judge, I would not be too happy with the way you have misrepresented what she said and did that day.