What is the point of Online Political Debate?

Recently on another site, someone pointed out to me that they respected my efforts, but that the Mayor of Overland and her supporters will not listen to what I have to say. They said that it has been tried before, and no one could get through to them.

Well, first I would like to point out that alot of the current Mayor's supporters said exactly the same thing about the previous Mayor and his supporters. On average, both sides are right about that. Both sides tend to the blind devotion of partisanship (A Partisan being a "fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea" in this use of the word).

People tend to become single minded once they choose sides. I know alot of devoted Republican's for example who will not accept a single bad word about President Bush. Now of course there is alot of "Bush Bashers" out there who will twist everything the President does until it looks wrong. However, President Bush has made some mistakes, that only "partisan blinders" could prevent someone from seeing.

The same holds true in regard to former President Clinton. There were "Clinton Haters" out there who would attack everything President Clinton did and twist it around to make it all look bad. However, there were alot of Clinton supporters out there wearing the same "political blinders", which would not allow them to see the mistakes he made as well.

So, with all these partisans and zealots out there, how do you "win" when you debate politics online? Well, to start with, you don't. Once in a blue moon you might change another posters opinion on something. However that is extremely rare (and it is nearly unheard of for someone to admit that change of mind online).

For some who debate politics online the goal is not to "win". The goal is to get their point of view out there, to give their side equal time, to challenge their political opposites assumptions, etc. It becomes a chess match of words.

For others it becomes personal. "They will not listen to me at all", so they go on the attack, as if questioning their opponent's waist size and the like will somehow allow then to "win". This can quickly become a flame war that makes both sides look childish.

Then there are those who see Internet based political debate as simply a hobby and a learning tool. You believe one thing, someone else believes another and they learn more and more about both sides as they research them in their efforts to "win" the debate with their opponent. If people do not go personal, this can actually be a fun past time for some, and an excellent issue review tool for others.

Lastly, there are those who see online political debate as a tool to help educate others and promote their ideals. On any debate site, about 20% of the people who visit it, actually post. The other "lurkers" simply come to read what others have written. They do this because they want to learn about the issues, or they have a particular issue of concern, or they just like to watch a good debate (or they are looking to steal some content for a homework assignment :-) ). Those who see these debates as an educational tool realize that many of the "lurkers" are undecided voters (most political partisans cannot visit a political debate site for long before they "have to" tell this guy that he is wrong or that girl that she is right). The "Lurkers" are really the ones people like myself are posting to.

If you want to effect political change you have to reach the voters. Preaching to the choir can be fun but you really don't gain much. Some take great pleasure in bashing their opponents, but they rarely gain ground and sometimes they loose a little. If you want to "WIN" you need to reach out to the undecided voters. Those people who are interested observers, not beholden to one side or the other and are actively seeking to learn which side is better, in their opinion, based on their own views.

That is the reason I and others like me "fight the good fight" of always trying to stay above board, always trying to focus on the issues and always trying to reach out to the other side (though I falter at times). Sure, I might actually swing someone from one side to the other on an issue (some have managed to swing me in the past on sites like Americas Debate), but the real reason I keep on, keepin' on, is because I want to keep the information flowing to the undecided lurkers out there. I want them to see that their are real issues here and that this is not simply about some sort of childish insult contest between two self-centered, self-important, ideologically bigoted groups.

This way, if nothing else these people can make their decisions based on something more then he says she's fat or she says he's an idiot.

The Mayor is at it again

Another new feature has appeared on Mayor Purzner's website ( http://www.annpurzner.com/ ).

This time it is the Voting and Attendance "Record" for the Council Members of the City of Overland. This is good information, but it is far from complete. I doubt it will ever include all of the meetings prior to the swearing in of Mayor Purzner where She (then still a Councilperson for Ward 3), Councilman Knode and Councilman Owensby did not attend meetings in order to prevent the city from doing business (due to a lack of a Quorum). It will likely not include the meetings prior to the election where Councilman Knode did not attend (of which there were many).

If the Mayor wants to truly provide a service to the residents of Overland rather than just more spin, she would expand that Voting and Attendance "Record" out to cover the last 3 years. Of course if she did that we would all see that she and her Councilmen have a long history of failing to appear at meetings. This was a wonderful political tool for her under the previous Mayor, but now that she are Mayor it is wrong? For most people, Morals are a constant Mayor Purzner, not a matter of convenience.

Then there is the interesting way the Mayor presents the voting "record". Her website's presentation makes it appear as if those council persons who opposed her voted against every key issue of the Capital Improvements Budget, and the General Funds Budget individually. If fact, they were not given that option, the budget vote is an all or nothing proposition. Since there were items in each budget that those councilmen felt they could not, in good conscience, vote in favor of, they were forced to vote no on the entire budget.

Mayor Purzner, if you really do want to see the city move forward, why not take all those key issues shown on your site and allow the Overland City Council to vote on them individually? Then the city could move forward in many areas while the council works out the remaining few. Of course, you will not do that, because you to are willing to allow this to be an all or nothing proposition. You and your Councilman are willing to allow the city to be placed "on hold" rather then treat the few contested issues separately so we can move forward with the remaining 90% or better of the city budget.

Then there are the wonderful Graphs that show how much overpaid the Chief of Police and the City Clerk are. The problem with these graphs are the "comparable position" lines. Is it really a "comparable position" when the person holding that job was only recently appointed? When you consider the Overland Chief of Police and the Overland City Clerk have been there for years, how can you directly compare them to people who just took those jobs? Consider the City Clerk. Does 19 years of experience mean nothing to the Mayor? What about 37 years of experience for the Chief of police?

The Mayor and her Councilmen have a long history of only telling part of the story and spinning the heck out of it to try to convince us that fact is fiction and fiction is fact. Mayor Purzner, if you want reasonable people to take the information you present seriously, then please provide the information on where these "comparable positions" are and what responsibilities they hold in comparison to our Chief and Clerk, on the same page on your website. This is Missouri Mayor, if you want us to take your presentation seriously you're going to have to "show us" the facts behind your presentation. Facts that we can verify.

Ever since the Boy Scout Letter fiasco a few years ago I have a hard time trusting what Mayor Purzner tells us when the presentation does not include any verifiable facts or sources.

Bill McClellan is Brilliant!

OK, this is NOT an Overland, MO. piece (a shock I know, but dumb stuff does still happen in other areas).

I read Bill McClellan's recent column "Storm stirs up north vs. South power struggle on my street" . It is brilliant Satire (heck, I printed it to share with neighbors). I truly enjoyed it as it did what satire is supposed to do, it makes you think about the underlying issues, while making you laugh at the same time. Well, that is of course if you get that it is Satire.

Unfortunately, it would appear that many in the St. Louis Metro Area did not. I am not sure what that says about our schools, but it is really said that a brilliant piece like this (one I personally think should be used as a example is college courses covering satire), would result in a massive surge of angry emails and calls to both Mr. McClellan as well as the Editors of the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

So let me start out with the basics here:

satire - 1. a. A literary work in which
human vice or folly is attacked
through irony, derision, or wit.

b. The branch of literature constituting
such works.

2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to
attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

(dictionary.com link)

Satire is a literary form of writing. It is often times used to illustrate social problems though extreme fictional examples. A better explanation than the simple definition of the word is:

Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which exposes the follies of its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) to ridicule, often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change.

(Source: Wikipedia)


I am quite confident that Mr. McClellan DID NOT actually do anything that appeared in this column. OK, he might have made a passing joke as the man obviously has an "off the wall" sense of humor but seriously, there is simply NO WAY Bill McClellan acted as described in his column.

The column is obviously designed to make us think. In my humble opinion it is partly directed at those who could have helped others but chose not to, and the excuses they make to themselves for their inaction. I read it as a sort of caricature in word form, of the self-centered nature of the average American in our modern times.

I thought the piece was brilliant, I thought it really brought home the selfish nature of the average person these days, and as always, I laughed all the way through it.

But read it again and you see it runs deeper than that. It is a satirical example of the class-based divisions in our society that exist, and how the "haves" tend to look down at the "have nots" and take comfort in assuming that it is the "have nots" fault that they are poor (which can be the case at times, but is certainly not always that way).

How simple, or dense does someone have to be to think that this actually happened?:

...My street, for instance. Those of us on the south side have power. We were out for a couple of hours Wednesday night. Very quickly, our power was restored. The people on the north side of the street have been without power since the storm struck.

At first, it was fun. I would walk on to my porch and I'd be wearing a sweater. "It's cold inside," I'd yell to my neighbors across the street. They were sure to be outside, by the way. The heat had made the inside of their homes unbearable. They had pulled furniture out on to their porches or in their yards, and they sat there sullenly, the have-nots staring across at the haves. They could see the lights on in our houses, the television lights flickering. They could hear the steady hum of our air conditioners.

"Any extra blankets?" I'd yell at them. "I like to crank the A.C. up on these hot nights, and the rest of the family complains."

source

It gets better, you really should take a moment to read "Storm stirs up north vs. South power struggle on my street", if you have not done so already. If you have, read it again thinking outside of the box of our current issues with power outages and the troubles that came with them.

Well, apparently there are a lot of people who took this seriously and completely missed the Satirical nature of it. As a result, Bill McClellan, and his bosses have been "swamped" with complaints from angry people who think this is terrible. I imagine some actually believe he did all of this as well.

Well, I would like to see people with sense write in as well. Let's let Bill and all the people at the St. Louis Post Dispatch know that we thought this was a fantastic column that really pointed out our social shortcomings America faces in the new millennium.

To write Bill McClellan: Click Here

To write a "letter to the Editors": Click Here

To write a "letter to the online Editors": Click Here

Come on people, can anyone take a joke anymore? Seriously, can anyone see things like Satire, Wit and FICTION for what they are? Does anyone actually believe Bill McClellan could have said or done such things. And even if you do believe he could, do you honestly believe that if he did it, the neighbors on the "north side" would not have beat him within an inch of his life?

Lets show Bill and his bosses that not everyone has a "glass jaw" and not everyone in St. Louis is incapable of "getting it". Please take five minutes or less and write to support Bill McClellan right now.

And now she's done it "wrong".....again.

Mayor Purzner has said in the past that she had no idea who published the Overland Watch "Newspaper" (better known as the Red Rag). Then at the "7/10 split" Council meeting when a resident asked if the publisher was present at that meeting she replied that they were not. A rather odd statement since, if she did not know who they were, how could she know if they were there or not? Next, when the same resident mentioned that he would have liked to "thank them", the Mayor said: "He is not here but I would be happy to Thank him for you." Again, how could she do that if she did not know who the publisher was? And how could she have given an interview to someone from that "paper" without knowing the interviewers name either for that matter? An odd set of circumstances to be sure.Now a new twist. The June 2006 Issue of the Overland Watch "Paper" (better known as the Red Rag) is being hosted on the Mayor's personal website at: http://www.annpurzner.com/ now. Amazing, she does not know who publishes the paper, but she allows them to host it on her website? Surely someone sent her web designer(s) the Adobe document, do they not know where that came from either?

Well, lets examine this a bit more. The paper says:

The Overland Watch is printed monthly and distributed to the
residents and businesses in the City of Overland, Missouri.
J. Kolmeyer Publisher PO Box 142612 Overland, MO 63114

(format changed for easier reading, please feel free to review the copy online at Mayor Purzner's site to see it for yourself).

So, who it this "J. Kolmeyer"? I don't know, but rumor has it that Donna Dill (a Maryland Heights resident and a long time supporter of Mayor Purzner and her councilmen) is connected to a James Kollmeyer. So, perhaps Donna Dill can shed some light on this for us?

Regardless, it seems to me that the Mayor is bent on alienating anyone and everyone who is not a die hard supporter of her side of things. A poor strategy in my opinion when you consider that those die hard supporters of hers only accounted for 34% of the Vote (less really, when you consider the number of people we have all met who now say they wish they could take back their vote for her). Enough to win in a three way election to be sure, but not enough to win the day for her in any recall election that might come up. And all sources seem to clearly indicate that the recall option will be employed in the near future.

I don't know if it is lack of understanding of the "game" or simply blind arrogance. But, whatever is behind the Mayor's latest bridge burning move, the results of it are not likely to be in her favor. Her's a Thought Mayor Purzner, try talking to a resident who is not a diehard supporter of yours and is also not a diehard supporter of your opponents. You might get a fresh prospective on what if going on around you, and who knows, you might learn something. If nothing else you will get an insight into what the "middle" of Overland is thinking and feeling in regard to what has been going on.

One thing is certain Mayor, those around and behind you (notice they are never in front of you?) have their own interests at heart and they have positioned you to take the fall if their plans run awry. I think you should seriously consider the motives of your "advisors" and "friends". A good old saying that I would recommend that you take to heart is "Trust, but verify". If you continue to blindly follow the advice of these people you will likely find that you suddenly have a lot more free time each day, while they start hunting up the next front-man (or woman) for their cause.

Mayor Purzner did it right!

I am a bit disappointed in some of the belittling of Mayor Purzner's efforts that I have seen around the Internet.

The bottom line is that from what we know so far, she made the right decision.

She put the Emergency Management in the hands of the Chief who has the experience and knowledge to handle the big issues. She then went to the community center and helped out in small ways, making sandwiches, visiting with residents etc. Call it a "photo op" if you like, but you would be screaming 'where was the Mayor' if she was not there.

How many times have we seen public officials jump in and try to take charge in situations like this when the have now experience or training in these matters? They do it because they feel that politically, they need to be seen as "in charge", or as the person solving the problems or what not. In the end they only cause confusion and make it harder for the emergency responders and other professionals to do their jobs.

The Mayor, IMHO made a very smart decision that was the best decision for the city. She left the management of this emergency to the professionals and took on a support role, to comfort residents in needs as well as be on hand should she be needed. Photo Op or not, this was what we needed here to do, and I am glad that is how she handled it.

Now, I am also disappointed in the Ann's supporters.

Why did Councilman May not give up the Wild Acres Gym to use as a cooling center when the power went out at the community center? Well, the storm that took out the community center's power also dismantled our heat wave. Temps dropped like a stone (Friday's low was in the mid 60's). If it is not hot there is little need for a "cooling center".

However, there is still the possibile need for a shelter for those who's homes were severely damaged. Well the community center was not allowing people to sleep there anyway, and the closest 24 hour shelter was the Salvation Army on Page, that has a capacity of 74. They told me on the phone that they were no where near that many (and that is with St. Ann closing their cooling center at their community center as well). So it would seem that we had the shelter issue covered as well.

With that in mind, is it not possible that Councilman May did not give up the Wild Acre's Gym because there was no need for it. Would you give up all the money spent on such and event and tell all those who traveled to attend that they would have to travel out at another time (if they could get more time off and could afford another trip) if there was no need for the space? I know I wouldn't. Also, it would have been the Mayor's job to take control of that property for the city if it was needed. I am sure she decided not to do this partially because there would have been those who said she only did it to ruin the May family's event, and mostly because there was no real need for another "cooling center" in our area or shelter for that matter.

They also ask: Why was Councilman May not at the Community Center helping everyone? Well, perhaps he was helping with the family wedding. However, being that he is an actual Registered Nurse it would seem rather likely that he was busy attending to those in need as well somewhere else.

And as for the question about the other council members not being there. Who knows. I know I worked my butt off to help my family and my neighbors and I never set foot in the community center. The community center was not the only place where people were in need.

Thank you Overland Police, Community and West Overland Fire, as well as all of the hard working Overland city staff that turned out to help. You are all amazing, you are all appreciated, and we Overland Residents are lucky to have you.

I am really sick of both side politicizing this thing. The bottom line is, we as a community did a pretty good job facing this crisis so far, so for god's sake cheer for us, and stop all the whining and maneuvering.

I was really proud of the way everyone on my block worked together to make thing better and to help each other out. It made me really proud of my community. That was of course until I got my power back and could access the Internet. Now I am simply disgusted.

Branches and Blackouts

On Wednesday, July 19th, our area was in the middle of a near 3 digit heat wave when we were hit with a surprise of a storm with massive winds tearing though our communities. In some places these wind gusts exceeded 90 MPH.

Falling trees took down power lines, falling power poles did so as well. Damage to the power grid was massive resulting in over 500,000 AmerenUE customers without power Wednesday evening. Like many of you, I was one of those citizens in the dark and watching the heat in my home climb uncontrollably. Once the storm passed my family and I exited the basement and waited for the power to return. Until now we had never seen an outage at our home that lasted longer then 20 minutes or so. When the power did not return we began to discuss options and started gathering the supplies we might need. When we heard on the radio that the power could be out for sometime, we went into full "emergency mode".

Wednesday evening was manageable for my family and I. However, Thursday was rough, I can't tell you what the temperature was during the day because I personally did not want to know the actual number (a mental game left over from my time in the Desert with the US Navy). However, the evening was unbearable. I moved my family down to our unfinished basement at around 2AM when the temperature in the house was still in the 90s.

To their credit, AmerenUE managed to get alot of people back online. The number went down to about 350,000 customers in the dark by early Friday afternoon. I saw the block next time me get their power back Thursday night, jst before dark. However, nature was not done with us. Another powerful storm blew through the area (this time with alot of ran), winds once again smashed though our neighborhoods. Down went the power gains and more. The result was 575,000 or so AmerenUE customers without power. One good thing came of it though, the storm smashed the heat wave thankfully. That evening the low was in the mid-high 60s.

Through all of this my neighbors came together. Some neighbors who are musicians tried to lighten the mood with a impromptu concert at one point. Others checked on various elderly neighbors and the like. The family with the youngest children managed to find a hotel room Wednesday evening (thankfully), and the two older residents that I was most concerned about (including one who needed an oxygen machine) we able to stay with family after the first evening. Having both a cheap inverter for my personal van and a 12 volt coffee pot I did what I could by keeping coffee available in the morning (I was soon joined by neighbors with various "antique" percolators, dripolators and the like). I was also able to rig up a small TV to the inverter and the house antenna so we all had access to the news. We all worked on keeping the ice, drinks and non-perishable food coming and in the end, we all faired pretty well.

Thankfully, though some of us had small and large tree limbs down, none of us on the block experienced major home damage or injury.

Then, to our surprise and joy the electric came back on at around 11:00 AM Saturday morning. I had been down visiting with the folks at Overland Hardware at the time. I heard the big "bang" inside the substation next door as they closed the circuit, which was quickly followed by a series of cheers from within the newly re-lighted Overland Hardware. I rushed home to see if we had power as well (forgetting to pick up the hose nozzle I went there for in the first place) and was greatly relieved to see that my block once again had power.

So it seems Overland Hardware and I are on the same circuit. So OH guys, take it easy and don't plug everything in at once Ok? LOL

Saturday was a clean up effort for my family and neighbors and now that we are all close to back to normal (or as normal as the odd balls around here get ), I was able to start gathering some information to post at Overland Speaks Out! for residents who have access to the Internet (one way or another).

I am hoping all in Overland (and elsewhere) are doing well and that no one is injured. I would ask that anyone who might need some assistance and can see this posting, or anyone who knows of others in need, please reply to this topic, or post about it on Overland Speaks Out! and let's see if we can't work together to get everyone though this.

Special City Council meeting July 17th 2006

When I arrived at the meeting I would estimate that the seats were about 3/4 full or so. I spend some time discussing all sorts of things with residents (the need to get their early to make sure you get a seat is becoming a social event of sorts). Also, Channel 5 and Channel 4 were in attendance.

It appeared that 110 - 120 people were in attendance (as there were a few empty seats). The meeting was called to order by the Mayor approximately on time. Council Members: May, O'Connell, Corcoran and Schneider were absent.

During the roll call, City Attorney, Herman stated that he had a letter from Councilman May that Councilman May wished to have read in his absence (it is my understanding that this is a long standing practice, though I have not seen anything about it in writing yet). Councilman O'Connell and Schneider also had letters they wished read (I do not believe there was one for Councilman Corcoran).

I am hoping to get a copy of these letters to post here. Until then, they basically said that the above Council members would not be attending any more meetings at the Council Chambers as they felt holding the meetings there was a violation of the Sunshine Law and they wanted to ensure that the city operated within the law.

There was also mention that the Mayor had refused to accept several majority votes of the council to hold the meetings at the community center (again, I am paraphrasing as I have not seen the letters).

At that point it was obvious to all that no city business would be done that evening as there was no quorum.

One interesting note was while City Attorney Herman was reading one Letter, Councilman Knode interrupted to ask Mr. Herman if he was representing the absent council members. When Mr Herman stated that he was representing Overland Mr. Knode stated:

" You are not the City Attorney Mr. Herman."

I also believe I heard the Mayor say something along the lines that they did not recognize Mr. Herman as the City Attorney but it was somewhat under the breath so I could have misunderstood).

Well that begs the question, Why do you allow him to sit up there, with a name plate in from of him that says he is the City Attorney?!?!?

This is ridiculous. If they do not feel he is the City Attorney, then have him removed and let the court handle it. The man is not going to resign, and you do not have the votes to remove him, so either stick to the argument that he is not the city attorney and have him removed, or stop the silliness and let the man do his job. This political gamesmanship is simply too much.

Another interesting statement was made, this time by Councilman Owensby, who told the City Clerk:

"Sunshine is coming up for you!"

Which prompted her to ask: "Is that a threat?"

OK, now seriously Councilman, would you consider that the professional conduct we should expect from a city councilman? Personally, I expect more maturity from my 5 year old.

However, to be fair I have no idea what prompted Councilman Owensby's outburst, so if you would like to explain it to me sir I would be happy to add your comments to this posting.

Several people called out here and there. This prompted Councilman Knode to ask the Mayor to ensure that the Chief of Police have people "physically removed" from the chambers if they are disruptive to the meeting. There were a few who were disruptive to a point (calling out comments here and there) but the majority of the crowd was quiet and attentive.

Shortly there after a member of the audience stood up after the Mayor told him he would be the first to be removed and said "don't bother" then he asked the crowd in attendance to leave. Contrary to the rumor mill there was no organization to the crowd's "walk out". The "disruptive" gentleman said we should all walk out to show the Mayor that we do not like what she's been doing and few went with him right away, while most stood around a bit, not sure what to do. Then some more left, eventually leading to what I would estimate to have been about 60% of the crowd in attendance walking out.

Some, likely thought (as I did), that since there was no Quorum, what would be the point of staying and listening to Owensby's raving, Purzner's rambling, Seller's Snoring, or Knode's arrogance? If the city was not going to conduct business then there were other things I needed to be working on.

Though not attending a meeting to prevent a Quorum is an accepted political tactic (The Mayor and her supporters on the council have a long history of doing the same) I think it is misguided at best.

The preferred approach, in my humble opinion would have been to attend, and if any member of the public was turned away due to room capacity restrictions, THEN seek a council vote to move the meeting to the community center. If the Mayor would either not allow a vote or not recognize the results then stand and leave stating your concerns about the Sunshine Law.

Right now we know one thing that was accomplished by this political maneuver. The business of Overland was delayed again. The blame for this rests partially on the Mayor, for failing to take into account an "anticipated attendance" in line with all of the meetings since she took office, as well as the Four Councilman who did not attend. In the end, there were some empty seats and the meeting could have happened without another Sunshine Law violation.

Who is to blame for the delay in accomplishing city business and the laughing stock our town is becoming to our neighbors? Look in the mirror Overland.

The City Council meeting on July 10th

The City Council meeting on July 10th Ran VERY long. As a result this post about it from me also runs VERY long. Sorry, but there was a lot to cover and I still likely missed a bunch (PLEASE feel free to reply to point out what I missed, point out where you feel I made a mistake, or where you feel my editorial commentary is wrong, this is a "discussion" site after all ).

There were camera crews there from all of the big three local news broadcasts. This was also the first meeting to be held at Wild Acres, in the Gym and it showed but just a little. Overall, especially when you consider the fact that this was the first meeting there, I think the staff of the City of Overland deserve a huge round of applause for doing so well the first time out. Also, the police officers there to assist us were, for the most part, the day shift crew. Their normal work shift starts around 7AM and they were still there to help us well after 10PM. Thanks Overland P.D.! You guys are the best!

One of the issues with holding the meeting at this location was parking. The Mayor pointed out to one resident that there were 45 more spaces here then at the Community Center. The resident rightly countered that there was an abundance of street parking at the CC while that is not an option at Wild Acres. Another issue is that roughly half of the available parking is actually down the hill at Wild Acres park. That makes it difficult for elderly and disabled residents to attend the meeting. According to Rebbeca Wu of Channel 5, who reported on the meeting, the Overland P.D. had to turn away 71 vehicles with approximately 100 passengers after the parking lot filled to capacity (a link to that broadcast is at the end of this post). Considering the issue raised by residents and apparently validated by St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch, that failing to provide a venue that allows all residents wishing to attend council meetings to do so is possible violation of the Sunshine Law, it appears that we failed to resolve this issue by holding the meetings at Wild Acres. So, hats off to all those who did their best to make this venue work, though Mayor Purzner should have never moved the meetings here over more accessible, tax payer funded properties considering it failed to address the Sunshine Law issue since members still had to be turned away from the meetings location.

Now, wow....Where to begin. So many things happened that my right hand went numb from all the note taking. Several people thought I was a reporter for a newspaper or something. Perhaps I should be, maybe we can work together and publish an "Overland Watch -- Watch" paper. We could take each accusation made and challenge it. Actually, we can all contribute to such an effort right here on the forums should they decide to publish again.

But Back to the Meeting. Well before the meeting started with the City Attorney had to move his name plate from the table on the floor below the stage, to the council table. For those who do not know, the City Attorney has always sat at the Council table. I am not aware of any ordinance stating where people sit at council meetings, however the Mayor did not appear to make any effort to prevent the Attorney from moving up to his normal seat at the council table. Since the Mayor did not object, it could have been a simple mistake (perhaps an attempt to deal with limited space at the tables). However, it does not look good when considering the Mayor's feelings regarding the City Attorney.

A new group in town made an appearance. Wearing yellow tee-shirts with red lettering, C.O.G.G. Citizens of Overland for Good Government was at the meeting in force. There were about 2 dozen members already there when I arrived at 6 PM. Alot can be said about Mayor Purzner, but you have to give the lady credit, she has done an excellent job of motivating civic involvement. C.O.G.G. should also get a thank you from the residents in attendance for providing a free volunteer shuttle service for the meeting.

To my surprise, the Ordinances to be considered were posted, but they were taped down to the table, with no copies available for residents to take and review later. Not having a photographic memory I will not be able to cover them in any detail this time around.

I dropped off a mountain of pamphlets about the new voting machines so that interested residents could take them to get an idea of what they will see at their polling place on August 8th.. Unfortunately, due likely to fatigue and a brain overwhelmed by the sheer mountain of B.S. we'd all been subjected to at that meeting, I neglected to pick up any that remained. I'm sorry about that, and whomever got stuck taking care of them, I owe you a lunch, just let me know.
(Edited to add: I went to the Friends of Wild Acres meeting on the 13th and found the pamphlets still on the table so I took care of them. Guess I owe myself lunch :-) )

Chief Herron arrived at the Gym at about 7PM to a thunderous applause from the residents. Right before the meeting started the Chief had a few words to say. He told us that he had been directed by the Mayor to maintain order and that no profanity, threats of violence, or offensive actions would be allowed. He said the residents who choose to comment would be strictly limited to their 3 minutes.

The chief also told us that the Mayor stated she would remove anyone who she ruled "out of order" as the meeting's chairperson, if the did not cease immediately (of course she seems to have an issue understanding what "out of order" actually is when following Robert's Rules of Order which is something I briefly address on my blog page).

Then, to our surprise the Mayor choose to start the meeting with her comments (which she later in the meeting referred to as her report). Now some took issue with this. According to the "Amended Tentative Agenda" The residents comments were to be first. In the Mayor's defense she is a Resident of Overland, and so I don't see why she should not be able to comment as well (I do not believe she exceeded the 3 minutes though I was not watching the time). However, when she later in the meeting said "Well I did my report at the beginning of the meeting" then I have to ask, was that meant to be her comments as any resident is allowed to make, or was that here report? If it was her report, then the Mayor was "Out of Order", as in the order the meeting was supposed to follow. The Mayors Report listed as Item 11 not Item 1 (and this is the "Amended Tentative Agenda" that was made available to residents by the City AT the meeting).

When it comes to the Mayors comments she stated some ground rules for resident comments and thanked the community center staff and others for doing a great job setting up the meeting. She complemented "the city staff" as being efficient, wonderful and more. But then it got interesting. She made mention to the "New Street Director" Scott Pope. Someone help me out here, where did that come from? She also said that if we do not like her as Mayor then that was our problem and if we do not like her as Mayor then we should run for the office next time around, which was followed by a brief outburst from what sounded like a majority of the crowd chanting "recall" 4 or 5 times. The Mayor went on to say that she was "elected by a majority of the residents of Overland". Well Mayor, you were elected, you did receive more votes then anyone else and as a result you are our Mayor. However, 34% is not a "majority" of 100% (like a 4-3 vote is a majority but I will cover that later), it is actually slightly more then a 1/3rd. Then when you take into account that we have of 16,000 residents and only 3000 or so voted, it is hard for anyone one with basic math skills to conclude that "a majority of city residents" were responsible for your election. By my math it looks more like 12% or so (rough guess). And by the way, a 5 vote margin is not exactly an "mandate" to anyone.

Of course residents comments followed, and the circus ensued. Some made good points, some made odd points and some made no points at all. Some were ruled "out of order" (which I have to ask: How is someone "out of order" when they are speaking within the time you allotted them to speak?), some were asked to leave the mic by the Chief under the direction of the Mayor, but over all it was not too bad. There were some really interesting ones though. First, after the 8th resident, the Mayor stated that they were out of time for further resident comments. Several Council members objected to this an a motion was made and seconded to allow the comments to continue so that all who requested to speak could do so. The Vote was polled and, surprise, surprise, Knode, Sellers and Owensby voted against it.

One Resident, the 8th speaker, who I believe stated he lived in Ward 2 specifically asked his Councilman, Tom Sellers about the Overland Watch "newspaper". He asked Councilman Sellers several questions about it, seeking to know if Councilman Sellers, read the paper and condoned everything in it. After a bit of a delay Councilman Sellers finally responded by saying "It's all Truth, there are things to back it up." Well, being a site open to all Overland Residents I would like to formally Invite Councilman Sellers to join us and present those "things to back it up". We are reasonable people here, but this is Missouri so before we can believe you, but you have to prove it, such is life in the "show-me" state.

Later the 11th resident to speak during residents comments at one point asked Mayor about the "Overland Watch" aka the "Red Rag". Specifically the Resident asked: "Is the Publisher here?" to which the Mayor replied "No". The resident followed up saying that he would like the thank the publisher to which the Mayor replied: "He is not here but I would be happy to Thank him for you." Now I seem to have misplaced my score card, so someone help me out here. Didn't the Mayor claim not to know who published this paper when asked about it shortly after it littered our lawns?

The 17th speaker of the evening sure caught everyone's attention, including that of all the reporters there. The resident was none other than our City Treasurer, Frances Kuhlmann. The treasurer attempted to speak about a issue where she states she has not been paid in a month at the direction of the Mayor. The Mayor argued that this was a "personnel matter" and should not be discussed publicly. I would like the Mayor to consider that fact that if this is not resolved it could easily turn into a legal litigation matter that would likely cost the City a great deal of money from the cost of the legal defense alone, and thus should be considered a public matter. Furthermore, we do not discuss personnel issues in public because of the employee's right to privacy and the need to protect that right. However, if the employee in question chooses to freely wave their right to privacy and discuss the issue publicly themselves, why should we stop them?

Later in the meeting there were more obstructionist tactics on the part of the Mayor as well as Councilman Knode, Councilman Sellers and Councilman Owensby when the City Attorney, during his report (which by the way was not listed on the "amended tentative agenda" and that fact was questioned by several council members) when he attempted to air this issue as well. Overall, the issue did get out there, and since every reporter present went over to talk to the Treasurer I imagine they will be contacting her for an interview on the issue which will surly put it in the public eye.

At issue is the Treasurer's refusal to sign a "personal check" to Ben Branch (the gentleman the Mayor attempted to illegally install as the new Police Chief) for the 5 days he "worked". The Mayor said he worked, so he should be paid. Sounds reasonable. However, since he was never legally hired, and thus should never have been put "on the job" in the first place, the residents of Overland should not be the ones paying him. The man having "worked" those 5 days was the sole responsibility of the Mayor, who choose to put him in that situation illegally. So, I believe it is reasonable to expect the Mayor to take responsibility for her actions and pay the man out of her own pocket.

There was a lot of odd procedural claims made at this meeting as well. Mayor Purzner. Could you please direct me to the Ordinance that states we cannot vote on anything (like allowing the Treasurer to continue to speak)? I can direct you to the Ordinance that states a Quorum is a minimum of 6 Council members. That would be:

Title I, Section 110, Article II, Section 110.170:

Six (6) Councilmen shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. If at any meeting, a quorum is not present, the meeting shall stand adjourned until the next regular or special meeting, provided, that any four (4) members of the City Council, or the Mayor, may have a call of the City Council and send for and compel the attendance of the absent member or members and make and enter an order for his/her or their censure or fine.

I can also point you to the Ordinance that states that it takes a Majority of those ELECTED to the City Council to pass an Ordinance. That would be:

Title I, Section 110, Article II, Section 110.260:

No ordinance shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall become an ordinance unless on its final passage a majority of the members elected to the City Council shall vote for it, and the "ayes" and "nays" be entered on the journal.

I am sorry Mayor, I do not see anything where it requires a 5 vote majority to pass anything. I freely admit that I am not expert on the city ordinances, and as a result I might have missed something. So please, direct me to the ordinance you are referring to that requires a 5 vote majority to pass a vote.

Also, is seemed to me, as a casual observer, that you had no problem allowing some votes to pass without a 5 vote majority, while claiming others could not without it. So, I am curious, if a 5 vote majority is required to pass anything, then why have a meeting at all?

Also, while we are on this subject I would like Mayor Purzner or Councilman Owensby, both of whom suggested that if a motion is made and seconded to have a vote be "reduced to writing" the motion needs to be tabled to point out where this requirement is. I have looked, but I cannot find that anywhere in the Overland Ordinances. I did a cursory review of Robert's Rules of Order and did not find it there either, though I do intend to research Robert's further on the issue. However, since you both have been claiming that this somehow causes a vote on anything to be tabled, I would imagine you could direct me to where I can find this requirement for myself? Please, do not take me wrong. I am not suggesting that it does not exist, I am asking my elected officials for information as to where I might find this measure as I have not as yet been able to find it myself. Also, isn't the entire meeting "reduced to writing" in the form of the mandatory minutes? So, where is this "reduce to writing" provision anyway?

Now, one real disgrace at this meeting goes out to every single council member as well as the Mayor. You all received a copy of Overland's Ordinances as well as Robert's Rules of Order when you took office did you not? ( edited to add: I have since learned that they did not, we really should change this) How could it be that none of you have either of these on hand for a council meeting?!?!? A procedural question was raised, and challenged, but the issue could not be resolved because no one had Robert's Rules or the Ordinances on hand. I am sorry, but that is a disgrace and it makes out town look ridiculous. Please, start taking the job a tad more seriously and bring the materials you will likely need to the meetings. You know: pen, paper, Robert's Rules, stress ball, Overland Ordinances, etc. Come on now, this is serious business, not recess.

Another interesting issue that came up was that our Public Works Director, Mr. Chuck Boone was moved to the garage and apparently replaced.

When asked the Mayor stated that it was done as a simple matter of the day to day operations of the city. She stated that Chuck Boone has said his job was too stressful on him and as a result she moved him. Again, sounds reasonable. However, Chuck Boone, who was at the meeting and took issue with this had a hard time addressing it as the Mayor attempted to prevent him from speaking about it saying "this is a personnel matter and cannot be discussed publicly." Well Mayor Purzner, your a bit late on that one. If the Public Works Director actually did have a problem with stress on the job then that would be a medical issue and medical issues are about the most strictly protected items in regards to privacy rights, which you violated by mentioning the medical condition in a public forum. If he did not say this, then you made a false public claim that he had a mental issue on the job. Either you slandered him or you violated his privacy, which is it Mayor? Either way, once again you actions have opened the city to more possible litigation that could be very expensive to the citizens of Overland.

Well, the big issue of the Night was the Budget. There were many heated discussions about this from all those on the Council. Councilman O'Connell complained that the Budget committee made no effort to work with other council members when it came to meetings. Councilman Knode countered by saying that the schedule was available, and that those interested Councilman should adjust their personal schedules as needed to attend. This is not an easy issue. Councilman Knode is correct. The Chair of the Committee sets the schedule and it is up to the members and other interested parties to attend. However, Councilman O'Connell makes a good point that everyone on the City Council works, and are involved in organizations other then the Council which makes their scheduling difficult. Should we invest the time to try to work out the schedule so interested Council people can participate? Of course we should, though it will not always work out as is the case with any organization. However, this is not required, it is merely good practice. Considering the current climate on the council, it is also not likely to be seen in the future, regardless of how right it is.

However, this was a large part of the reason why the Budget, already 10 days overdue at the time of the meeting, did not pass. 4 members of the council felt they were shut out of the process, unable to give input, and now were faced with a budget that does things they cannot support. If the Budget committee had attempted to work with all the council members on meeting schedules, we might have seen the budget pass, we might not have. However, if input had been allowed by the entire council it would have at least had a relatively better chance of passing then it had tonight.

I am not going to go into great detail on the budget because it has no hope of approval by the City Council as it stands and will need some radical changes.

According the Mayor and several on the council all currently construction projects and the like will have to stop until a Budget is passed to pay for them. However, the employees will still be paid.

There was much discussion on the issue from all sides, some of it heated (some of it down right childish), but to no avail. The budget still did not pass. A meeting was agreed upon for following evening to try to hammer out the budget issues and we were told that residents were welcome to attend. When I went to leave for that meeting this evening I was told by several of my neighbors it was canceled. If anyone hears anything about when they will meet to resolve this budget crisis (an if they will allow residents to attend) please let me know. ( edited to add: I have since learned that it was canceled as were so many other meetings lately)

Over all I was highly disappointed with the council and the Mayor in general due to this meeting. However, the Mayor's continuing failure to run the meetings properly (by Robert's Rules of Order as required by the State), and her mis-steps that continue to open up the City of Overland to Lawsuits are simply too much. Mayor Purzner, PLEASE read Robert's Rules, learn the State Requirements, take advantage of our business community and learn a little about employment law. As the Mayor you need to understand the basics of these things or the litigation that will likely follow will render any future budget discussions as moot.

This meeting was very long, though about the only thing it accomplished is what it always seems to accomplish. It made Overland look terrible in the eyes of our neighbors who watch the news. This can really have a negative impact on the city. I mean, if you wanted to start a business, one that was best served by an area with our demographics, after seeing all that has been happening lately would you even consider Overland? Or would you turn your attention to the smaller towns around the area with the same basic costs of operation and the same demographic but no Council Circuses?

Here is a few tastes of what happened early on, Thanks to our local news broadcasts. This is what all are neighbors are seeing and reading about our town:

From Fox 2 KTVI's Website:

HEATED EXCHANGE AT OVERLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING (JULY 11) - There was more shouting and insults as another Overland city council meeting turned controversial. About three hundred people showed up, mostly to make comments against Mayor Ann Purzner (pictured). At one point, members of the city council were even trading insults. One woman at the meeting said, "I believe you have violated my rights to speak! You truly scare me with your dictator attitude!" Purzner later responded, "I don't even like you, why would I talk about you?" and the woman yelled, "You libeled me! You libeled me!" Residents who did not get a chance to voice their concerns say they will be at the next meeting. Many are part of a newly formed group called, "Citizens of Overland for Good Government."

Link to video of Channel 4 (CBS) Coverage of the meeting

Link to video of Channel 5 (NBC) Coverage of the meeting

And I am sure that was not the end of it. Anyone see any other links to stories about this out there?

Lastly, I apologize for the length of this. However, the meeting went over 3 hours long, so there was a lot to cover. As for the editorial content on my part. I am not a reporter, I am citizen and I have opinions. Those with opinions that differ are VERY welcome to reply to this post so we can discuss it. That is what the site is here for.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what I had to say about that meeting. Now it is your turn.

A fresh start

With all that is going on locally I decided to re-open (and rename) this blog.

My personal views have not changed. I still believe the biggest threat to the future of our country rests with BOTH the Democrat and the Republican "machines". Their obsessive "need" to gain and maintain power has corrupted the process to the point that an elected official who seeks to do what is right, rather than what is right for themselves is seen as a oddity. There are good men and women in both parties, but their partisan leaders seem to focus only on gaining and maintaining power, not using it wisely, or for the benefit of the people at all.

However, my adopted hometown of Overland, MO. is in trouble. One political faction in town has all but taken over. It seems that no law, statute, ordinance, or ethical standard will stand in their way. These folks were the minority for a long time. Now they seem to think it is time for "payback". While they are trying to stick it to their political rivals the rest of us suffer.

I decided to recreate this site because the residents of Overland deserve to know what is happening to their City. The local media has a tendency to gloss over our issues because we are a small town. I have made it my mission to present detailed and accurate reports to the citizens of Overland about what is happening here.

"Remembering the Past

while looking forward to our future."
The Overland Missouri Motto.

Well, if some of our politicians (& their supporters)

do not let go of the past, the the only future

we will have to look forward to is one of ruin.

To the Mayor and her supporting Councilmen,

Overland is not your personal weapon to use against those who have opposed you politically for years. Please focus on doing the business of the people, not giving us the business.

There are Laws, Statutes, Ordinances and Ethical Standards that govern how you are supposed to do you jobs. I've decided to make it my mission to point out where and when you get out of line. I will GLADLY congratulate you all when you accomplish good things, but for that to happen you will need to bury the hatchet and start focusing on the needs of the residents of Overland. Until you are willing to do that, The Overland Examiner will be there shining a spotlight on your every dealing.