The "Owensby Memo"

It seems that Councilman Owensby is at it again. Sources tell me he recently circulated a "memo" to residents of Ward 3. The Overland Examiner has secured a copy of this memo for your review:

(click the image to view the document)

The first claim I find interesting is:

"...opposing groups she [Mayor Purzner] faced in the election under the direction of former city attorney Robert Herman."

Mr. Owensby is in error on this issue. This issue has been covered at length on this site (I cover this issue among others here). The bottom line is that the Ordinances say he is our attorney. Chapter 77 Says he remains so until someone is properly appointed to replace him and the courts have already ruled on this.

Furthermore, as someone who did not vote for Mayor Ann Purzner and is now opposing the Mayor's various illegal actions, I am offended at Mr. Owensby's generalization. I was willing to give Mayor Purzner a chance. However, because of her wasting of the courts time and resources (by fighting to be sworn in a week or so earlier than tradition and the lawsuits and legal issues that followed) I find I have to oppose her at this point. The city can simply not afford the legal expenses she continues to create needlessly. I also cannot stand by and ignore they way she has been treating the City's fine employees. They deserve far better then that. That being said, I am not being directed by CURRENT City Attorney Robert Herman. I am being directed by my conscience.

It is the job of our Mayor and the Council to understand and uphold ALL of the city Ordinances and all Laws that apply to the Governance of our City. That would include Ordinance number 112.98-19, the Ordinance that names Mr. Herman as our City attorney and which is still in effect. The Mayor has every right to seek the appointment of a new City Attorney. However you need to do so within the law, and with Council Approval as per Chapter 77.

[City Attorney Herman] "...has billed the city hundreds of thousands of dollars."

I imagine that is true, when you consider that he has been the city Attorney for over 20 years.

Mr. Rudman, the Mayor's personal attorney, submitted a bill of about $4000.00 to the City of Overland (though he was never officially hired or contracted by the City) after only one day in court. Do the math.

"Embroiled the City in Lawsuits, which directly enriched Mr. Herman at the expense of residents services such as free trash pickup."

The City faced a lawsuit because the Mayor attempted to illegally remove the Chief of Police and the City Attorney from office without a vote of the City Council. She Lost. The City has faced a lawsuit because the Mayor has violated not only the Missouri Sunshine Law, but also Overland City Ordinances that mirror it(I covered this issue here among other places). She Lost on the Motion to Dismiss as well as the temporary injunction (which is why we now have to hold meetings at the Community Center), and everyone you talk to with any knowledge of the Sunshine Law and legal precedent associated with it says the Mayor will loose the final hearing as well (I covered this issue here). The preliminary hearing took 4 days and the Mayor has already attempted to have the $4000.00 bill from Mr. Rudman, her PERSONAL attorney, paid by the City, despite a 5-2 vote by the City Council against doing so. Four police officers have had to file suit against the City because of the Mayor's decision to illegally pull their promotions and raises (I covered this issue here). We are likely to see a lawsuit from a City employee the Mayor has refused to pay for months as well.

All of these suits are the result of the Mayor and her supporting Council Members refusing to follow the Laws, Statutes and Ordinances that govern their jobs. In 4 months, we are already close to $20000.00 in legal expenses (as per KMOV 4 here (membership may be required). At that rate we would be looking at 1.6 million dollars in legal expense over 20 years. I'll take Mr. Herman's "hundreds of thousands of dollars" as Councilman Owensby calls it, over 1.6 million, any day.

"Eliminated the City Calendar"

It is not eliminated, it is modernized. It can be found right here. Now if only the Mayor could actually ensure it was properly updated. With all the meeting cancellations, reschedulings, etc a printed Calendar would be pointless.

"The new balanced budget...."

It is not balanced if you have to go into the city's revenue reserves to pay for it.

"The Mayor has kept her word to the people"

The Mayor has consistently failed to uphold the Laws, Statutes and Ordinances which is why we have been in court so often. She swore to uphold them all in her oath of office (not just the convenient ones). Is that what they mean by her keeping her word?

"bringing back free trash pickup for the residents"

A trash service that the Mayor and her supporting council members refuse to talk specifically about. They now say that they have had no conversations with or bids from any trash companies and yet somehow their budget item for it is accurate? If they did not do the research how do they have any idea what it will cost? If they did do the research why will they not allow us to see it?

"...Councilmen May, O'Connell, Corcoran, and Schneider......have successfully created a tremendous amount of negative publicity for our city."

None of this negative publicity would have happened without the Mayor's actions. It was the Mayor who made the decision to illegally lock out the Chief of Police, and illegally replace him with Ben Branch (which was over turned by the court). That is what caught the media's attention. Now, all the actions of the Mayor since then is what has kept the media here. The Negative publicity is the Mayor's responsibility, no one else's.

Now the Mayor will not pay the Treasurer again. First, the Mayor refused to pay the Treasurer until she agreed to sign a paycheck for Ben Branch who was never legally hired by the city (The Treasurer refused because he was never legally hired). This time the Mayor apparently will not pay the Treasurer until the Treasurer signs the checks for Mr. Rudman and a consultant. Both of which the the City Council specifically voted 5-2 against paying. The Treasurer will not do this of course because she knows the payment to these gentleman has not been authorized by the City. At least our Treasurer wants to work within the law. I assume the Mayor realizes at this point that refusing the pay the Treasurer will result in yet another lawsuit and even more bad publicity.

"rewarding a few friends at city hall with huge pay increases"

No one has suggested "huge" pay increases anywhere. The only pay increases being considered are the 3% COLA increases for non-supervisory personnel that Councilmen Knode, Sellers and Councilman Owensby added to the budget early on (and no one disagreed with).

"making sure our chief is the highest paid in the area."

What area would that be? The Chief is paid less the the average salary for Chiefs of police in the entire St. Louis region (and that is without taking into account his additional job description of the City Emergency Manager). I have covered this issue already both here and here.

Councilman Owensby then goes into the same old "high legal fees", "Ann won", "call her and tell here you support her", diatribe.

The fact is, the Mayor is the reason we have had all these legal fees, and all this negative publicity since April. The residents, including myself, have had about enough. Either follow the law or follow the road out of town, please. While there still is a town here for them to leave.

I would welcome the opportunity to chat with the Mayor and try to work out some of these issues. However, she never seems to take calls and does not respond to emails. Perhaps once I learn the number(s) she can be reached at in Creve Coeur we will be able to discuss how she can work to achieve her goals without violating the law repeatedly along the way.