Overland City Council
"almost" meeting on Sept. 11, 2006
The Mayor claims that her issue is the need to get the business of the City done. I understand her concern. However, the law on this matter is clear, you cannot limit residents comments. The Mayor should be fully aware of this legal issue as the ACLU sent her the following letter detailing that, as well as other potential legal issues concerning the way she has been handling residents comments at the City Council meets. Here is that Letter:
To make matters worse for the City of Overland, Anthony E. Rothert, ESQ. The Legal Director of the Eastern Missouri ACLU was in attendance. He was taking notes, giving out his card to those who were not allowed to speak or were thrown out of the meeting, and I understand he made the comment that to merely document (in a legal format) all the various violations he witnessed at the meeting would take days. I briefly spoke to Mr. Rothert and he gave me permission to post his email address should anyone who feels their rights were violated need to contact him. That email address is tony@aclu-em.org.
In my opinion The Mayor has conducted herself in various ways that have opened the City of Overland to lawsuits past, present and future. We have already had several lawsuits against Overland, caused by allegedly improper and in some cases illegal actions of the Mayor. In this case, the ACLU was kind enough to send a letter to the city warning of the potential liability risk as a way to avoid litigation. The Mayor apparently choose to ignore it.
It is my opinion that the Mayor is acting under the belief that she cannot personally be sued for her actions as Mayor. Which would be based on the following City of Overland Ordinance.
SECTION 115.080:
INDEMNIFICATION OF CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
A. All elected and appointed officials and public employees of the City of Overland shall hereinafter be fully indemnified and held harmless by the City from any and all costs, attorney fees, claims, causes of action, judgments or damages, either actual or punitive, which may be assessed against said Overland officials or public employees as a result of any action or omission of that public official or employee in the course or conduct of their public office or employment.B. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as an express or implied waiver of sovereign immunity of the City of Overland as provided by the laws of the State of
Missouri.C. The indemnity expressed in this Section shall not extend to any person who shall commit an act constituting a misdemeanor or felony as defined by the laws of the State of Missouri or the United States. (CC 1976 §2-23; Ord. No. 2201 §§1--3, 8-26-85)
There has been some speculation that an Officer of the City needs to show they made a reasonable effort to not operate outside of the law, statutes or ordinances. I am not sure about that requirement as I have not seen it in writing. However, the Mayor will not even consult our City Attorney, so if that requirement is true, it is obvious in my opinion that she is not making a reasonable effort.
One thing to remember: If the Mayor continues to insist on using her own attorney (as is her right), she would be responsible for that attorney's bill unless there is a majority vote of the City Council the authorize that attorney to represent the Mayor at the City's expense.
The bottom line here is that the Residents who's first amendment rights are being violated have a pretty air tight case against the City. The ACLU has already warned the city that continued violations will likely result in legal action against us, so I think this case is inevitable. Unfortunately, the case will be against the City, and the Money lost will come from the City. That is money that could have been used for street repairs, kids programs, filling the 4 vacancies at the Police Department, and more.
One resident commented that "No matter who wins this war Overland looses!" She was right, the City is loosing business, funds, and we are taking a major hit on our reputation. No matter who "wins" we will still loose. However, suggesting that everyone on the Council is to blame is not accurate in my opinion. Councilmen May, O'Connell, Corcoran and Schneider were not up there opposing the Mayor herself. They were opposing her actions. Actions that allegedly violated the rights of residents and actions that could easily cost the City a great deal of funds to lawsuits we cannot hope to win.
One of the Resident Speakers was the City Treasurer. She was asking for direction from the Council and advice from the attorney on how to proceed with an issue. At issue was the fact that the City is currently undergoing an audit (by the state I believe). It is my understanding that this is a semi-regular occurrence. The Auditors are questioning why there are three checks written to three individuals, apparently signed by the Mayor but not by the Treasurer, in the safe at City Hall.
RSMo 77.460. Corrupt allowance of claim, how punished.
Any member of the council or officer of the city who shall, in official capacity, or under color of his office, knowingly or willfully or corruptly vote for assent to, or report in favor of, or allow or certify for allowance, any claim or demand against the city, which claim or demand shall be on account of or under color of a contract or agreement not authorized by law and the ordinances of the city, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
As we have discussed before, allegedly, the Mayor has refused to pay the City Treasurer her monthly pay. As we have heard from several sources, the Mayor put in writing the Treasurer would not be paid until an unauthorized check to Mr. Ben Branch was signed by the treasurer. We have also been told by several sources that the Mayor told the Treasurer verbally that she would not be paid until that check, as well as the check to Mr. Rudman and a consultant (on another matter we assume) are signed by the Treasurer.
We can clearly see based on the Ordinance above that the Treasurer cannot do this without risking criminal charges as she is an officer of the City and there has never been a vote of the Council, Contract or Ordinance authorizing any of those payments.
Now, if the above allegations above are true. Then in my opinion the Mayor could be guilty of more then a simple Ordinance violation. Consider the following:
Section 576.010 Bribery of a public servant.
1. A person commits the crime of bribery of a public servant if he knowingly offers, confers or agrees to confer upon any public servant any benefit, direct or indirect, in return for:
(1) The recipient's official vote, opinion, recommendation, judgment, decision, action or exercise of discretion as a public servant; or
(2) The recipient's violation of a known legal duty as a public servant.
2. It is no defense that the recipient was not qualified to act in the desired way because he had not yet assumed office, or lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.
3. Bribery of a public servant is a class D felony.
Call it bribery, call it extortion, or call it blackmail. Whatever you call it, anyone can look at this and see it is wrong. If the Mayor is refusing to pay an employee because that employee will not violate laws, statutes or ordinances for the Mayor then the Mayor needs to be held accountable. I think it is high time the State Attorney General weighed in on violations like this:
Missouri Attorney Generals OfficeJefferson City Main Office
Missouri Attorney General's OfficeSupreme Court Building207 W. High St. P.O. Box 899Jefferson City, MO 65102Email: ag@ago.mo.govPhone : 573-751-3321Fax: 573-751-0774Also try:Nixon For Governor
P.O. Box 143,Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
Phone: 573-761-5333Fax: 573-761-4817Email: Contact@NixonForGovernor.comWhen you contact ask for:Demand an Investigation into the issues facing Overlandand the Mayor's mountain of alleged legal violations.
posted by Overland Sailor @ 11:56 AM 
29 comments
Post Permalink
links to this post
29 Comments:
Great objective observation John. Curious since you have become "public" have you received any letters citing your home from our wonderful city of Overland Overland?
Mr Knode really did not want to hear from Overland residents last night as a policeman walked Mr and Mrs Knode to their vehicle following the "almost" meeting.
No, I have not been subject to issues from the codes department. I would like to think that this will not happen because I am only a concerned citizen trying to act in the best interest of the City. However, I'm a realist.
Mr. Knode is one of my Councilman, for the time being at least. I had held out hope for awhile that he would be able to be reasonable. However, he has proven me wrong. As a constituent, I guarentee you he cannot tune out or ignore the ballot box.
Great coverage, John.
I'm curious about the audit that was mentioned.
Following is an excerpt that I ripped off your post:
Quote:
"One of the Resident Speakers was the City Treasurer. She was asking for direction from the Council and advice from the attorney on how to proceed with an issue. At issue was the fact that the City is currently undergoing an audit (by the state I believe). It is my understanding that this is a semi-regular occurrence. The Auditors are questioning why there are three checks written to three individuals, apparently signed by the Mayor but not by the Treasurer, in the safe at City Hall."
End of ripped-off Quote.
There's a firm named Hochschild Bloom that has been into Overland's books now for a long time. Every year or so an officer of theirs appears at a CC meeting and reads his stuff:
"H-B is an independent firm..." and all the folks in City Hall take whatever their told at face value.
As to a State Audit, that would be a fine thing. Hundreds of signatures would be required to have Claire McCaskill's sleuths investigate Overland's records on OUR dime. Any wrongdoing found therein would be reported to the proper law enforcement agencies, for prosecution, be it grand jury indictments, or whichever prodecure is appropriate.
I do believe the State was contacted about ten years ago to check us out but whether it happened or not is unknown to me.
I believe a State Audit would be proper, considering that Hochschild-Bloom has been so cozy with Overland, despite their history of being sued by the City of Crestwood for a huge error, only a few years back.
Will this meeting appear on cable? The police chief explained early on that the mayor and council were having problems hearing each other due to the speaker locations. At one point Mr O'Connell asked "Mayor, can you hear me?" I heard a female voice say "No" but I'm not sure if it was the mayor. If it was, I would love to see that exchange on tv. You can't answer a question you didn't hear.
I never would have believed that such a blatant disregard for law, order and freedom could occur in these United States! Such an unlawful display of incompetance, ignorance
and rude behavior by civic leaders calls for immediate intervention by authorities qualified to restrict and punish the offending
officials. The time has come to seek such intervention by the
Prosecuting Atty, the Mo Atty General, the civil courts or the Supreme Court if need be. We cannot stand by and watch our city be distroyed by a handful of corrupt individuals. Let's act now!
I think the audit is done every other year or once a year, no one really cares for this company.
The State did do an audit years ago, I might be wrong, but they didn't find that much wrong with the books, I feel this is because the person in that department is good at her job. And that hasn't been easy over all these years. The City Clerk keeps on top of things also.
In one article it said that the Mayor suggested a special meeting to allow people to have their say.
I feel this is a good idea, or have the comments after the meeting, the only thing is if I were Mayor, (Lord help us) I would let them speak after the meeting, is there anything saying the Mayor or Councilmen have to be there to listen to the residents. Hold on, don't get upset. I'm sorry but we have seen that no matter what the residents say, if the council and Mayor don't like the comment they ignore it anyway, so if the people want to speak and they don't want to listen, let the Mayor and whoever leave. At least people can get things off their chest.
I seen meetings go past midnight, these Police Officers, City Clerk, Chief are being compensated in some form for this time.
Would it be legal to make copies of these checks locked up in the safe? This might show who is telling the truth. So many rumors.
Is the City Treasurer not getting paid at all or is it that the Mayor refuses to pay for the expense account given the treasurer
until the treasurer turns in receipts for expenses? I don't know, it could be both. How are we to know?
I also heard it stated that the Mayor and council should not respond to the residents comments. People can speak, but the council should not reply.
Again the Mayor is wrong, I don't think it is right but the rule is you do not have to show receipt's until you have spent over $199.99.
So you have a salary here and an expense account. That's the way it is, that's the way a previous board voted.
You cannot just come into the city and change the rules because you were voted Mayor and someone wouldn't do things your way.
I wouldn't sign those checks either.
In the past we had to fight to get residents comments, then we had to argue to let the cable people show the resident comments on TV. Ann was not Mayor then, I don't know why but almost every Mayor we have, has been against residents comments in some way, shape or form.
To me it sounds like a simple case of theft. The mayor is not paying for the services of the treasurer. If the mayor has a problem with the treasurer then let her take actions against her in accordance with the charter.
I have never seen a case where such severe disciplinary action can be taken (not paying) against an employee without some form of Due Process. It is the same thing as going to a restaurant eating the food and not paying the bill.
Stealing--penalties.
570.030. 1. A person commits the crime of stealing if he or she appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by means of deceit or coercion.
I will be checking with the city about the audit, but it appears I was mistaken about it being a audit by the state. I believe the confusion might have come from the audit being a state requirement. As for "no one really likes this company" I would love to hear more about this. What could a auditor do to irritate government officials other than tell them to do their jobs properly?
The entire point of residents comments if for residents to be able to direct their concerns to their city government. Holding the comments after the meeting would still cost the same in terms of police officers being there. Finally, there is no reason the Mayor and the City Council should not respond to resident comments or questions, unless those comments or questions are about personnel matters other then pay or expense accounts, or they are about on going litigation issues (due to privacy and legal concerns).
As for copies of the checks, I am not aware of any law against this. These checks are attempting to spend public money so it could be acceptable I believe. Also, it is the Treasurer's Salary that is not being paid. The reason for the confusion there is that the Treasurer took a reduced salary from the city to avoid a conflict with her pension (as she is a former city employee). It says something about the Treasurer that she wanted to be a part of helping run the city and did not take the position for the money. She is not being paid her monthly salary, we know this because she has said this herself, repeatedly.
Considering that we have had people in the cities past assigned to "jobs" where they were paid thousands of dollars but never did anything and were most at city hall don't remember ever seeing them, we should thank our Treasurer for being willing to do an important job for very little compensation (as opposed to an unnecessary job for excessive compensation).
In the case of expenses. According the ordinances, section 115.090 (b) specifically, Expense reimbursement requires that a voucher certifying the expenses as true and accurate, be signed, and be submitted to the City Clerk before the city will reimburse regardless of the dollar amount.
I agree, I would not sign those checks either. However, considering that at least two of those three checks were submitted in direct conflict with a 5-2 vote of the City Council I would also have contacted the City and County Prosecutors to alert them to the issue and file a complaint.
I agree with GF, this is very much akin to stealing, and as the Mayor has now refused to pay the Treasurer for three months, the amount of this theft would warrant a felony stealing charge assuming stealing would be applicable.
Sailor,
Is the City Treasurer going to commence legal action against the Mayor? This is out right black mail. To withhold pay because the Treasurer will not commit an illegal act is BLACK MAIL. Why hasn't anything been done thus far about this? Why is she waiting so long to do anything about this?
Great to see you back New Girl!
When it comes to not just the Treasurer, but nearly all of the City employees who have had issues caused by the Mayor or others, there is a reason why they try so hard to resolve issues "in-house" rather then file various legal actions.
These people do not work at City Hall for the Money. Heck, the Treasurer took a pay cut just so she could still serve the City. The vast majority of the Employees there work there because they want to be a part of making Overland Work and Grow. And we cannot do it without them. The deserve your thanks daily.
So it goes against their "grain" to file a suit against the City because of the actions of the Mayor. They do not want to take money from the City, and they do not want to see us experience even more bad press. So they try to work the issues out as best they can until they have no choice but to file. We should all thank then for that as well.
I have talked with many of these fine folks. For those I missed who might read this site I say this:
File today! I do not see it as "bad press" when residents and municipal employees act to prevent bad government. This "bad press" could actually serve as a positive example to get others to do the same. The more people who start doing their jobs of monitoring their government the better for all of us in the long run.
As for the financial losses. If you have to sue, take the favorable judgements and pay your legal fees. If you are not comfortable taking the money from the City then donate it to local causes that are out there trying to make the City better. Do not let your love for Overland lead to Overland's destruction.
I just know there has to be something big being covered up.
The audit that is done, I don't know how to explain it, when the Sate came in and did the audit, one of the things they felt might be wrong, is using city money to fund a Christmas party for employee's. The audit company has different audit packages they offer, you pick the package you want, pay more they dig deeper I guess, again this is my interpretation.
Would it be legal to address the issue of paying the Treasurer at an open meeting. Her we go with laws, I for one would like to see her get paid so we don't go into another law suit. The treasurer is already in a law suit with the city, I have heard.
What good does it do to picket city hall? What good does it do to stand up at meetings, when no one is listening to you? Well lets say the people you are addressing your complaint with don't listen or take action.
This is a nightmare.
The Treasurer did not address the issue of her pay at the meeting. The Treasurer was asking for direction from the Council and advice from the City Attorney on what to do with the checks in the safe because of the audit. It is not proper to have those checks in the safe. They should never have been written in the first place.
"What good does it do to picket city hall? What good does it do to stand up at meetings, when no one is listening to you? Well lets say the people you are addressing your complaint with don't listen or take action."
They do not have to listen. The Voters are listening. If the Voters see that several council members are ignoring the concerns of the residents those council members will likely find they have more free time on Monday's after April.
It has been said that "You can't fight City Hall". I do not know who is responsible for that quote originally, but whomever it was, he/she was a coward. You certainly can fight City Hall, as brave residents from all over Overland are proving to us.
That is what the democratic process is all about. People are exercising their rights of Free Speech to seek redress from their government on what they see as wrong-doing. It is the American way and I applaud them for it.
Based on his actions alone, I suspect Mr. Knode will no longer be seen at Council Meetings after the April Elections. I suspect the same of Mr. Sellers as well. That is the prize they win for their arrogance as well as their apparent contempt of the law.
Regarding the public comments your Mayor Ann Purzner wanted the public comments to be video taped especially to attack Dody. The council decided unanimously that it was the best decision to allow residents to be video taped she made her bed and now she is lying or more appropriately "lying"
I believe it was Councilman Jerry
May who asked the mayor is she could hear him. It WAS ms purzner who said NO.
Channel 18 Tour de Farce Show just ended.
Did anybody catch the comment by a man in red shirt regarding an attempted sale of Bengoni's Restaurant?
I think he said that another restaurant in Overland is for sale. I wonder which other restaurant he mentioned.
He said it was the Hacienda. What a loss. I remember when it was a little storefront place on the east side of Woodson, then moved to Western Auto.
I wish we could just play the tapes of these meetings for the Atty Gen and the St. Louis Co Pros
Atty etc Our Dishonorable Mayor would be having the Mandarin House send her supper into jail
Are you saying it is the Mayor's fault that these places are closing?
I've heard stories as to why Bengoni's closed. I don't like mexican food, but it is sad if they have to close, on the other hand maybe they just want to sell the business. The closing of the Government Record Center is hurting a lot of other places also.
I know Bengoni's use to have a lot of customers from there.
Just think of the five or so people in the Community Center that did not get to take care of opening their business's.
I kind of hope the Mayor keeps her promise about another Town Hall meeting.
I liked the way Mrs. Westoff talked to the council, she meant it for all of them, what a shame all the time they take yelling. It's true in that time period everyone who wanted to could have had their three minutes of fame.
I thought I heard the name Hacienda also, so thanks.
mayor purzner is to be blamed for her refusal to finish Residents Comments timely under the mandate of her council.
The council determined, 4-3, that Residents Comments must continue.
mayor purzner (not 'ann') refused the request to say how many Residents Comments filed forms were submitted to speak.
purzner is entirely responsible for the four business interests on the agenda not being addressed.
As to Bengoni's matter, I don't know the facts or news on that.
I cannot confirm this information, however it has been said by several people that Bengoni's ad a buyer, but the sale fell through due to the actions of our code department. The requirements they were insisting on made the deal too costly. Now Overland has one less resturant.
Personally, I cannot understand why the Government of Overland, The Public Works Department in particular, chooses to enforce code restrictions above and beyond what surrounding communities require. They have to know this is hurting business development in Overland.
As for Ms. Westoff's comments, why is it you say her comments were directed at the entire board. It seemed to me that they were directed at the Mayor.
One thing to consider when it comes to who is to blame for those business interests delays. Four council members wanted it made clear that they did NOT support the violation of residents rights. When it was clear that the Mayor would not allow them to avoid the rights violations, they stated they had no choice but to move to adjourn the meeting.
However, that vote to Adjourn was UNANOMOUS, meaning the Mayor and her supporters cannot plain their opposition alone.
I'll have to play my tape over. I didn't hear her say any names, and it is not.
After this last meeting I cannot respect many on that board, probably none of them.
Why didn't Herman answer Jeff when he kept asking for an opinion?
Bob should have stopped the vote each time after residents comments.
The meetings were never called to order, how can you take a vote. Bob should have spoke up the very first time the Council ask and voted to extend the time. He could have said, "if you allow the residents to speak longer,you have set a president, and will have to continue doing so if at the next meetings more people want to speak." No he just sits there and lets people from the AClU take notes about violations, is this a conflict of interest due to the fact he represents clients of the ACLU? (Be aware that if it weren't for this group a lot of people rights would be taken away from them, especially womens right).
Did anyone see Mr. Coccoran push Owensby's chair way back from the table? Not right, childish.
Mr. Schneider, was OK, he is looking out for himself about law suits and I don't blame him one bit.
Mr. May was so obvious, walking back and forth whispering to Hermans, talking to Mrs. Kuhlman with her mic on.
What is this with Mr. Knode wanting people put out of the building? They were out of order?
Everyone was out of order, when you attend the council meeting, order is left in the parking lot.
O'Connell, needs to find out how to address the Mayor. He looks like and acts like he has no respect for women, I know it is probably just this one, but how is one suppose to know this?
I don't know what was going on with Owensby and the mic. I did hear the Mayor to tell him to be quite. I don't blame the councilmen from ward four for not acting up, except the chair thing.
Sellers didn't say much of anything, except to get up and unplug mic's, I think.
Poor Linda, I think that is the longest in many years that I've been in a room with her and she was quite.Don't let them break your spirit.
Mrs. Kuhlman, should have address the council through land line or e-mail, not that she was wrong, but it would have been a nice big surprise for the auditors to find those checks, she wanted to ask the council what to do about the three checks, come on, Fran has been with the city a long time, she knows you don't discuss these things at a public meeting. The reason I think, she wanted to let the public know about these three ILLEGAL, I SAY AGAIN ILLEGAL CHECKS. Fran you have too much class and a good reputation to let these men bring you down to the ORT standards, this is not to be insulting in anyway or disrepectfull. You know she would make a good Mayor. Not only that you live with a darn good campagin manager and your son-in law is an excellent writer
I might be saying too much, but acting like the ORT is making the council look bad.
A+ TO THE CHIEF, his demeanor has been improved. I know he has his feelings about the Mayor he co-operates with Ann to try to keep the meeting going.It sounds like he tries to talk some sense into the Mayor.
These meeting accomplish nothing, except to put out money for police officers working for the extra cash.
I think all of this might lead up to St. Louis County or the State comming in and taking over the City
because our council cannot conduct
meetings.
I thank you for your time.
The Treasurer discussed these things at the public meeting because it was the only avenue she had left since the Mayor apparently circulated a memo restricting employees from contacting the City Attorney and the Mayor's only answer to the Treasurer on what to do with those checks was to sign them and send them to the parties they were written to, which was clearly illegal.
Mr. Herman did not answer most questions because the Mayor forbid him to do so. If he ignored her direction she would likely have suspended him for insubordination.
Mr. May was obvious? In what way? The only thing I got from his actions was that he was working very hard to try to find a solution that would keep the City from being sued. It was very clear in the original ACLU letter sent to the Mayor (and posted here) that you cannot restrict residents comments in the way the Mayor has been doing it. Everyone who asks to speak needs to be given the opportunity to do so. The case of Green vs. the City of Moberly Missouri makes this pretty clear. As for the issue with the Treasurer the poor lady has tried every avenue, and even had her pay withheld from the Mayor for three months (and it is her salary that is being withheld) she is trying to find a resolution that is within the law. The Mayor will not allow it.
Councilman Sellers did say one thing. he said the council had not voted before to extend resident comments beyond 15 minutes. Which of course then did at the August 14th Council Meeting, and the July 10th Council Meeting.
I disagree highly that "order is left in the parking lot". The people at the meetings occasionally cheer, clap or boo, but that is really normal behavior for a crowd. The do tend to get irritated and at times call out in frustration when the Mayor refuses to accept the rules, Councilman Owensby steps up to Mr. Herman like he wants a fight, or Councilman Knode shows them such contempt for residents that he leaves rather then listen to the their concerns.
If the Mayor and her supporting Councilmen want to get the business of the City done, and they want the respect of the residents, then need to start actually following ALL of the laws and not picking a choosing the ones that serve their purpose while ignoring the rest. They need to start taking the concerns of the residents seriously, rather then treating them like ignorant children who can't think for themselves. And they need to stop with their quit possibly libelous statements on the Mayors website, in their letters to the residents, etc.
I know I was willing to give the Mayor a chance until she started ignoring the laws. I was willing to give her another chance but she is still working to circumvent the laws, statutes and ordinances that govern her position. At the rate the Mayor is going we will not need to vote on the General Revenue Budget because all of the revenues will end up going to pay off lost law suits.
Personally, I am beginning to wonder if the county or state stepping it would not be better for Overland in the long run. It is impossible for some on the Council to work to keep the city within the law when the Mayor refuses to recognize the majority.
I must apologize to Mrs. Kuhlman. Not that I intended to insult her, no wonder she brings it up at the meetings. Sorry.
We are still paying Herman, so she is wrong if she does not recognize him as City Attorney, he is until she can appoint someone else and that appointment approved by the board. Actually we have no legal representation because of the note. I wish someone would send their copy of this noteto the papers.
From someone like me, and my neighbors it seems that the four council members are just as ridiculous as the ORT.
I would like to see the council come to order, take a vote to allow many more people to speak. If I were trying to figure out what is what, who is who at this last meeting, I mean you need to see it in a strangers eyes. They all looked bad.
I might be wrong about order, I have to take it as I hear the noise in the gym on TV, then see residents coming up and talking, it looked crazy.
Maybe they want to force Fran out by not paying her.
Maybe a news paper should come out with pictures of the checks and the not about going to Mr. Herman and it doesn't have to be in poor taste.
I envy you because you have a way of finding things out. When the time comes, count me in for working on the recall drive.
Herman's spoken out against mayor purzner, yet he is required by his role to be objective. Past conduct by the council (precedent) does not define the current leaderships rights and responsibilities. That extension of Residents Comments was extended in the past may prove that it CAN be done, but not that it's the only path or solution.
There are other problems to address now, so our solutions must take into account new concerns.
I don't agree with the following quote, concerning Mr. Herman:
He could have said, "if you allow the residents to speak longer,you have set a president, and will have to continue doing so if at the next meetings more people want to speak."
End quote.
Mr. Herman and the ACLU have worked together in the past, (KKK) but their relationship cannot be assumed to cloud the decisions of either party.
As to allegations of "ILLEGAL CHECKS", seems there was an attempt to make improper payments, but if not completed, I'd question if an actual violation has occurred yet.
I have to look into RROO to see the Motion to Adjourn part. I believe it isn't subject to debate, for some reason. Unless of course, the ORT wants to have their way.
Regarding the four-member majority.
If one councilman moved the chair of another, chances are it was in view of not only hundreds of residents, but also on TV.
May stood up and talked to people: when does that become a concern?
O'Connell addressed the mayor as ann, to which she objected: Jeff wasn't out of order in doing so. He certainly doesn't seem to base his opinions on actions for reasons of gender bias.
To minds that hold the Four just as responsible, some questions:
What other choices might they have made, given the stonewalling ORT's conduct?
What else might they do?
At the 7/10 meeting when the treasurer spoke during residents comments about the first check, the mayor told her that she (the mayor) could find her a different position. Maybe someone should ask Mr Boone about speaking up and the mayor finding a different position within the city government.
Nazrudin, In answer to you question: "What other choices might they have made,given the stonewalling ORT's conduct? What else might they do?" End Quote.
My answer:
Never bring yourself down to let your actions imitate the disreputable actions of your opponents. Sometimes the other side does this on purpose.
As for Mr. O'Connell, I was in agreement with him to let the residents speak, the precedent
(got it right this time) was set at the other meetings, but he sounded a little immature the way he kept saying "ANN", I feel it came to a point that the focus of his statements was just on what name to address the Mayor and people weren't caring about what he was saying. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to Mr. O'Connell.
If I were in his place and the Mayor called me on using her first name (which was silly on her part) I would have said: "I don't respect you enough, due to your past actions since you've been elected to address you as "Mayor" or "Your Honor," therefore, out of respect for your age, I will address you as Mrs. Purzner . One more thing, I expect to be address as Councilman O'Connell and not Jeff."
I am not sure if applying the word stone walling is really appropriate to the four on the Council who seem more interested in following the law. After all they are the majority of the Council.
The tactics of the minority on the Council would seem to deserve the title more. Though they know they cannot pass any measure without the support of at leat 1 from the other side they still refuse to even consider talking about compromise, let alone actually seek to negotiate towards it.
As more Councilman O'Connell, I agree that he lost a few yards of the high ground with the "Ann" issue. However, when the other side is so deep in the low lands by comparison I am not sure it makes much of a difference.
In reference to "stonewalling" Nazrudin and I were referring to the three ORT's on the council.
Overland,
Have you had any luck setting up interviews with any of the other councclman?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home