"mis-communications"

On August 30th 2006, an update was added to Mayor Ann Purzner's personal website. That update claims:

It is unfortunate, but there have been a number of incorrect reportings or "mis-communications" by the local news media we feel the need to clarify.

I agree with Mayor Purzner. However, the account on her own website fails to "clarify" the situation in my opinion. Her site claims:

...the legal actions as filed against the City of Overland have not been DECIDED, SETTLED, or OTHERWISE RESOLVED.

Though it is true, a ruling on a permanent injunction will not happen until November 20th, 2006, The Court has issued several rulings in regard to the case. The Request of Preliminary Injunctive Relief was SUSTAINED and an Injunction was ordered which is why the City of Overland is now forced to hold all meetings of the City Council, regularly scheduled or otherwise at the Overland Community Center. This is also why the city is now required to post the time, date and location of meetings, on both the City Hall notice board, and the City's Internet site. There was also a ruling on the Mayor's Attorney's Motion to Dismiss. That motion was OVERRULED.

However, I do not expect the public to take my word on these things. What follows is an official copy of the Preliminary Injunction and Judgement issued by Judge Thea A. Sherry, Judge, Division 35 on August 28th 2006:

......
Page 1 ..................... Page 2

......Page 3 ..................... Page 4

Feel free to read this document for yourselves and come to your own conclusions. One interesting item to note would be on page 3, Item 11, where the Judge makes it clear that she believes the Mayor attempted to violate the courts order (the judge choose not to impose sanctions as the Mayor canceled the meeting in question). Also on page 3 is item 12 where the Judge makes it clear that Wild Acres is not "reasonably accessible". Another interesting item is the Order of the Court that starts at the bottom of page 3. It not only orders the Mayor and the City to schedule meetings, regularly scheduled or specially called at the Overland Community Center, it also Orders that the Mayor and the City to ensure proper notice is given through posting memoranda and website posting as to the date, time and location of all regular or special meetings.

I hope that clears up those "incorrect reportings or 'mis-communications' " they were referring to on Mayor Purzner's Personal Website. I don't think the Judge's ruling could be more clear.

Mayor want's us to pay her bills

The City Council Voted to NOT pay Mayor Ann Purzner's Private lawyer, Mr. Rudman's $4000.00 or so bill at the August 28th, 2006 City Council Meeting. The Vote was 5-2 against it. There was never a vote to authorize Mr. Rudman to represent the Mayor at the expense of the City, there is no contract between the City of Overland and Mr. Rudman, and there is no Ordinance authorizing Mr. Rudman to represent the city in anyway. Mayor Purzner has every right to have her own attorney, just as we all do. However, she does NOT have the right to ask all the residents to pay for it.

Yet Mayor Purzner, despite the vote of the council has submitted this bill to the City Accounting officer and demanded that it be paid. "we have to pay the bills" according to the Mayor.

Well, I have a few 100 hours invested in the website as a service to the City of Overland. Guess I should submit a bill, as it appears the Mayor will pay any bill regardless of lack of authorization and even in the face of a vote of the majority of the council not to do so.

Contact the Mayor today and let her know how you feel about her attempts to make you pay her bills:

Overland City Hall: (314) 428-4321

Email: mayorpurzner@overlandmo.org

Or for other contact options: click here.

What they have said

We cannot get a straight answer from the Mayor and her supporting Council Members when it comes to what their proposed city paid trash collection service will include. The amount in the budget proposal is significantly less then the city was paying before the cost increase that resulted in the need to have the residents start directly paying for the service (as opposed to indirectly paying for it though their taxes). However, according to the Mayor their will be no reductions in service. The Mayor told us the city has not discussed this issue with any Trash companies or recieved any Bids from them either. This causes most to wonder where this number comes from. There has been alot of speculation on the issue. We do not have the answers but the following information might help.

A source suggested we take a look at the minutes from Council Meetings around those times. The City Council Meeting on November 8th 2004 is rather illuminating. What is the Mayor's suggestion? Eliminate city funded yard waste and recycling pick up, What is Councilman Owensby's suggestion? Eliminate the Overland Police Department and have the County take over. See it for yourself:

From the Minutes of the Nov. 8th 2006 Overland City Council Meeting

OLD BUSINESS

Councilman Owensby said he has received complaints on paying for trash pick up. He would like to see this on the April ballot so residents could vote on it.

Councilman Purzner asked if there could be a choice to pay for recycling and yard waste, some residents do not use these.

Councilman Owensby suggested eliminating the Police Department and use St. Louis County in order to save money.(source)

Note: There was no issue raised by either Councilman Owensby or then Councilperson Purzner on these items when the Minutes of this meeting were approved at the Nov. 22nd 2006 Overland City Council Meeting.

Then there is the Minutes of the November 22nd 2006 Overland City Council Meeting:

OLD BUSINESS

Councilman Owensby suggested hiring St. Louis County to provide police services and eliminate our Police Department. He said County would also supply any equipment needed. (source)

Note: The December 13th 2004 meeting minutes are missing from the Cities Website, I will review them sometime today.

It seems that the Mayor did not think we need recycling and Yard waste pickup, or that that citizens could pay for that themselves back when she was a councilperson. Is this why the amount for trash collection in the proposed budget is significantly lower then what the city paid prior to deciding to pass this cost directly to the residents?

Employees of Midwest Waste have suggested to us that residents would have to pay 15.00 - 20.00 a month to have yard waste pickup if it is not part of the city services should the city start paying for trash collection again. It reminds me of that great lady in the Wendy's commercials, though in this case the question would be "Wheeeeeres the Savings!?!?"

Discussions with sources close to the St. Louis County Police Department suggest that should the county take over Policing for the City of Overland, they would likely assign 5-6 officers to the area (based on how the county handle similar sized areas). 5-6 officers vs. the 40+ Officers we have now. Great idea Councilman Owensby, we trade a small trash bill for a big crime increase. Most residents would prefer not to trade trash for trouble sir. Though I imagine a higher crime rate would be great for gun sales in the area.

Councilman Owensby was kind enough to include his as well as Mayor Purzner's phone numbers in the above linked "memo". Call them today and tell them how you feel about Our great Police Department and the Mayor's illegal attempts to pay Mr. Rudman's bill.

4 More Lawsuits filed against Overland

On August 18th, 2006 I covered the legal issues concerning the Mayor's less-than-legal actions against our police officers. You can review that article here. As predicted the lawsuits have been filed. I cannot blame our fine police officers, they are merely exercising their rights. Their lawsuits are due to the Mayor's failure to follow the law. We expect our Police Officers to enforce the laws of the City, the only difference this time is that they are also the victims.

One interesting note on the Police Lawsuits. I have covered all the legal options the Mayor had but choose not to us in regard to those promotions (you can read about it all at the page linked above). However, according to Fox 2 News in the morning broadcast on August 30th, 2006 Mayor Purzner admitted to approving those promotions but had to rescind them later. Her admission of originally approving them is important. Since she did not exercise any of the legal avenues available to her to rescind those promotions and she now admits to initially approving them I think even a 1st year law student could look at this and see they cannot win the case filed by the officers.

So what will this cost us? Well the officers have the right to seek twice the wages that were wrongly taken from them and all of their legal fees. So, for the police officers to get the promotions the Mayor said on Fox 2 News that she supported we will like have to pay an additional $10,000.00. Does this make sense to anyone? If so, please tell us why.

Just how much does Mayor Purzner plan on costing the City of Overland by not following the Law? When it comes to the issues with the General Revenue Budget I think we are going to need to set aside $1,000,000.00 or so, to cover these and the likely future legal expenses the City can expect as long as our Mayor chooses to lead through arrogance rather than reason.

The Mayor and Councilman Owensby seem to want to hear from the Residents. They asked for calls of support, but I imagine they would take calls of concern as well. If you would like to take a moment to contact the Mayor with your concerns you can reach her at:

Overland City Hall: (314) 428-4321

Email: mayorpurzner@overlandmo.org

Or for other contact options: click here.

On another note, the Mayor has added a new post to her website. She once again mentions the Sunshine Law case having "broad legal ramifications for every community in the State of Missouri". There is extensive case law concerning the Sunshine Law already available for review. Though it is not often that citizens have to file these suits (prosecutors and / or the media are the typical filers), the actual case is nothing new at all. Government officials attempting to keep their constituents out of the process has been happening for a long time. Actions like these are the reason the Sunshine Law was passed in the first place. The only "broad legal ramifications for every community in the State of Missouri" will be that those communities will be reminded of what happens when elected officials choose to ignore the law. It is nothing new for anyone in government responsible enough to learn their job.

August 28th, 2006 Hearing & Meeting

The August 28th Hearing and Council Meeting were short. However, a few things happened that are worth mentioning. To start with, the official count of attendance was 168. That does not mean much since this was two meetings, one, a Public Hearing on the property tax rate of the City, and the other a Special City Council Meeting. One interesting point to me is that the City has still not added the time of that Council Meeting to the posting on the city website, Nor did they ever mention that it was also a Public Hearing on the City Tax Rates. As of August 29th, 2006 at 11:00AM this information is still not there.

This should not be an issue in the future> As I understand it the Order issued on August 28th, 2006 by Judge Sherry requires we hold all future City Council Meetings (regularly scheduled, special, etc) at the Community Center, it also references the 24 hour notice requirement and mentions the City's Internet site as well. I am waiting to see an official copy of the order. When I do I will let everyone know the specifics. However, so far it sounds to me like the City is now required to post meeting information on the website.

First, I found it interesting that though there was a Public Hearing on the Tax Rate scheduled to be held that evening, there was no microphone setup for residents to use to make comments which is what public hearings are for. They did ask for residents concerns on the Tax Rate and a few people did ask some questions (without the benefit of a microphone). For the record there were no negative comments made at that time directed at the Mayor or anyone else.

One comment I found interesting was when a resident asked how we could have projected lower revenues from residential property taxes when the tax rate has remained the same and most people's assessed values have gone up? I wonder the same thing myself. The Mayor answered that we have alot of vacant houses. I am not sure what she was getting at but occupied or not the tax rate remains the same. I guess it is possible that revenues could be lower due to uncollected property taxes, but I would be surprised if I found out that those projections took that into account. If anyone knows why our property tax revenues are down, I would appreciate it if you let us know.

The hearing concluded with no change made in the City property tax rates.

Then the meeting was called to order, with all elected Council Members present. First order of Business was the Mayor's nomination of George "Blondon" (not sure of the spelling at this time) for the vacant ward 3 seat. The appointment was voted down, 4-3. I don't know anything about Mr. "Blondon" so I could not say if this would be a good appointment or not. However, the same could be said for the Council Members who voted against the appointment. They had been given no information on the man, nor had they been given an opportunity to meet him. Personally, if I was a Councilman faced with an appointment of someone I had no information on I would oppose the appointment as well, regardless of who made it.

The Next issue that came up was the matter of paying the bills. This was where all the "fun" of the meeting happened.

Among the bills was one for $4000.00 from Attorney Rudman who has been representing Mayor Ann Purzner in the Sunshine Law case. It is my understanding that the city originally received this bill before the second day of the hearings, so I assume it covers his pre-trial work and the first day in the courtroom.

Several Councilman opposed paying this bill. The Mayor claimed several times that the bills have to be paid. She also claimed that a vote called to pay all the bills with the exception of Mr. Rudman's bill and an $800.00 bill from a consultant would not be valid. First She claimed this was because it would require five votes, second she claimed this was because, as she repeatedly said, the bills have to be paid.

The Mayor is correct when she suggests that the Mayor can pay the bills without a vote of the Council. However, that only applies to items that were either specifically budgeted for, that the City is contractually obligated for, or for something that approved by a vote of the Council in advance.

There was never a vote of the council to authorize Mr. Rudman to Represent Mayor Purzner in this or any other case. The Mayor is of course entitled to her own legal council, as is anyone else, but she is not entitled to having the residents of Overland pay for the lawyer without the approval of the City Council.

She again made the erroneous statement that it would take a "5-3" vote in regard to passing the motion made to pay all but the above two bills. We have covered this issues at length here. However, in this case it is irrelevant since Councilman Sellers voted Yes, along with Councilman May, Councilman O'Connell, Councilman Corcoran, and Councilman Schneider on the motion to pay all the bills with the exception of Mr. Rundman's, and the consultant's bill. That would be a 5 vote majority. Though it is not required, it is still 5 votes so what can we expect from the Mayor on this issue? My guess would be a veto.

However, the Mayor would still need a vote of the Council to be legally authorized to pay those bills and she is not likely to get a majority to approve it. She could try to pay it anyway (which would unethical, let alone illegal I believe), but I seriously doubt our Treasurer would sign the checks (our Treasurer still has not been paid by the Mayor btw).

Mr. Owensby was strangely silent on the issue of not having a vote of the Council to authorize Mr. Rudman to represent Mayor Purzner. I find it strange because he argued against paying Mr. Herman's bill for the same case on the same basis.

However, in my opinion Mr. Owensby was mistaken when it comes to Mr. Herman's bill. The first part of his argument was that Mr. Herman should not be representing an opposing party against the city. I have written about Mr. Herman's actions in that court case at length. He was representing the City, not the plaintiffs. Mr. Schoch (spelling?) was representing the Plaintiffs.

The second part of Mr. Owensby's argument seemed to me to be that there was no Vote of the City Council to authorize Mr. Herman to represent the City that case. There is no need for such a vote in my opinion. Mr. Herman has a contract with the city to be our City Attorney. That contract includes provisions for him to represent the City's interests in court.

In the end, the 5 to 2 vote authorized paying Mr. Herman's bill and specifically did not authorize paying Mr. Rudman's bill or the consultant's bill.

I wonder what Mr. Rudman will do now? Will he continue to represent the Mayor in this matter? Will he file suit against her personally (there is no contract with the City so he would not be able to successfully sue the City of Overland on this issue)? He was the Mayor's original pick to replace Mr. Herman, so I guess we will just have to wait and see.

The meeting ended shortly after votes were taken on two proposed ordinances. One to provide a share of the property tax revenues to continue to fund the Police Pension, the Other to set the city tax rate, which remained the same as last year.

Channel 4 CBS News at 10PM August 28th, 2006

According to Suzyjax at the OVCC website, CBS channel 54 had a teaser on the 5 pm news about a story at 10pm tonight, August 28th, 2006 on the total litigation costs to the city of Overland since Mayor Purzner took office.

Please take the time to watch it tonight. It just may put the damage Mayor Purzner is doing to Overland with what seems to me to be her complete disregard for the law.

I hope to see you all at the August 28th Meetings at tonight.

Do we have a Money Tree?

The Mayor has another message on her website. This time she is thanking all of her supporters for their "overwhelming positive responses" to the new, likely libelous, section of her website where she presents edited audio clips and various misquotes of several Council Members as fact.

For the record, I want our council to vote on the removal of all links to the Mayor's personal website from our official city site. Those links suggest possible city support of her site which could create more expensive legal entanglements for our community should any one of the many people who have been potentially libeled by her there choose to sue. We do not need even more legal expenses due to our Mayor's poor choices and ethically questionable actions. Let's keep the city out of her legal rodeo as much as possible.

In the rest of that posting she states she wants to restore our tax dollars for:

"Free" Trash Service
a "Dog Catcher"
a Community Calendar
a Swimming Pool
and "other services"

She says that all of these services were lost due to other politicians "re-allocating" the tax dollars residents have already paid for these services.

Well, Mayor Purzner is correct, the dollars were "re-allocated" in a sense. However, I have yet to see anything to suggest that any of the city revenues were ever collected to specifically pay for any service, other then councilman Knode's claim (that he has yet to publically provide proof of) that the utility tax dollars were originally ear-marked for the Trash service. Outside of that it is certian that none of the tax dollars collected were specifically ear-marked for any of the above sevices.

The leaders that came before Mayor Purzner did "re-allocate" funds to pay for other city services like our Police force for example. They did so for the good of the community as a whole. The bottom line is that there is a finite amount of revenue available to the city (any city for that matter) and an infinite amount of things various interests within Overland (and elsewhere) want the city to fund. Decisions have to be made on which services are more important for the residents as a whole. That is what separates the Leaders from the Politicians. The Leaders are willing to make the hard decisions for the good of everyone in community while the politicians will promise anything and everything for the good of themselves and their political careers (while having no real plan to pay for any of them).

We have covered the so called "free" trash issue time and time again. As a resident, I cannot support the measure when we need to replace 4+ police officers (which this current budget does not authorize). I also cannot support a measure when there is not supporting documentation in regard to the cost of this service to the city or what services will be provided. At the August 14th meeting Mayor Purzner stated that the city had not discussed this issue with any trash companies or received any bids. So how can we have any idea what the actual cost of this service will be? How can the Mayor's proposed $600,000.00 or so for this service possibly be accurate when it cost the city far more than that before the service was discontinued? Prove the numbers to me Mayor Purzner and I might reconsider.

Few have a problem with hiring a new Animal Control Officer other than the fact that it might be just another patronage position. Lets get our former Animal Control Officer back (if possible) as he was top dog (pun intended). I don't know anyone who ever had anything by positive things to say about him, lets stick with success and see if we can get him back.

No mention of the unnecessary purchasing officer position Mayor Purzner? Is this a sign that even you now see that this position is a waste of scare resources? Could it be that you now realize that it is unlikely that this person would be able to save the city enough to even cover their salary (not to mention benefit costs, payroll taxes, etc)? Maybe you now see that this position is very dangerous as it sets up one person at a low pay scale to be the target of kick-back and bribery offers for all sides.

And you want the Community Calendar back now? Last I heard you wanted to bring back the community Newsletter. So, now it is the Calendar instead? Of is it in addition? Where is all this money supposed to come from? I do NOT want the city to dip into the revenue reserves to pay for a calendar. This is unnecessary. For access to a free calendar there is one on the city Web Site, if people want a paper version they can print it from the site themselves, or they could ask a friend or neighbor to do so (I would be happy to do that for my neighbors as I am sure others would be as well). Are we really willing to sacrifice our revenue reserves (that should be left there for emergencies) or even take a police officer off the street just to create a glossy calendar? And how accurate would that calendar be when we have a Mayor who is always adding, canceling, or rescheduling meetings?

However, if a glossy calendar is something we really feel is needed, why not consider the option taken by many communities, private funding? Allow advertising from local businesses. Have enough advertising at a high enough rate to pay for the production of the calendar and this would not be an issue at all. I doubt anyone on the council would oppose a calendar that does not cost the city any money.

As for the swimming pool, we have options here. For example, why consider paying someone $25000.00 to do a study when every pool contractor in the area would likely offer us free estimates / bids? Why consider spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an outdoor pool that will only be used for only part of the year when the old YMCA building is available (and has been offered to the city before)? That is an indoor pool that can be used year round, not to mention that there is alot of other space in the building that the city could use for various departments and projects? Also, that pool is in far better shape then our former community pool.

Why even consider a pool at all when Woodson Terrace has allowed us to use theirs? They have a pool, we have a community center. Why not work together to share resources rather than reduce the number of police officers on the street protecting residents in exchange for a pool that the city's own study a few years ago showed was used by only 15 people a day on average?

The Leaders that came before Mayor Purzner and her Councilmen had the foresight and strength of character to make the hard choices for the good of the entire city. We DO NOT HAVE the funds to pay for all these services unless we reduce the police force, cut salaries, raise taxes and/or dip into the reserve accounts. This is irresponsible politics at it's worst.

Mayor Purzner, PLEASE reconsider putting the residents at risk by keeping the Police force of the city understaffed. We need the police more then your friends need patronage jobs and government handouts. I would rather know the police are keeping my child safe, then have a pool a few miles closer for her to swim in. And I am willing to bet if you bother to ask, most of the residents of Overland feel the same way.

The Mayor's Selective Reading

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

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

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

SECTION 140.090: ACCESSIBILITY OF MEETINGS

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

(Ord. No. 2004-58 §1, 9-28-04)

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

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

The Mayor closes with:

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

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

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

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

Councilman Owensby's Ad in the Localite

Councilman Owensby paid to place a quarter page ad on page 11 of the September 2006 Localite. In this ad he claims residents likened Mayor Purzner to an "Angel of Mercy", in her work at the Community Center. He also says: "I saw not one of the critics of Mayor Ann Purzner do anything for the residents of our community."

With all due respect Councilman Owensby, if you had gone out and looked at what was going on in our community at the time (something I would expect community leaders to do) you would have seen just how many of the Mayor's critics and supporters alike were out helping their neighbors. Contrary to what you would have us believe Councilman Owensby there were many people helping their neighbors, family and friends. The volunteerism did not stop at the Community Center.

Futhermore sir, how can you take issue with the absense of several council members when you, the Mayor, and others made no effort to contact those members to let them know about that anything was being done by the city at the community center? If you want to know about all their individual efforts to help the residents of Overland, why don't you ask their neighbors?

Furthermore, you and the Mayor are the only ones who have used the number 130 in regards to the people who used the center. I even spoke to Wanda Knode, someone who had volunteered for hours and hours there herself, right after this happened. When we spoke and I mentioned that there were only 24 or so people there who could be easily taken care of at other official shelters. She agreed with me (though she said there were some residents who did not want to go to the Salivation Army shelter and the like). Looking at the pictures in your advertisement I see nearly as many volunteers as those who were being helped. Those pictures don't look like anywhere near 130 residents sir. I live in Missouri Councilman Owensby, so if you want me to believe this count of yours, you are going to have to "show me" the proof. I, like Fox 2 News, am not buying it without evidence.

Councilman Owensby, when I consider this eyewitness account, along with your recent admission in Judge Sherry's Courtroom while under oath that you added "By Order of the Mayor" to emails you sent to city employees directing to take actions that you admitted in that same court under oath, the Mayor had no knowledge of, I simply have to question the reliability of your report. Personally, I prefer to get my information from sources who are not admitted forgers and liars.

Councilman Owensby goes on to say: "Please stop and think, if another emergency such as an earthquake or other natural disaster occurs whom do you want to trust, someone who takes care of themselves first or someone who takes care of the people?" Well Mr. Owensby, I want someone who takes care of the People. That is why I support Chief Herron, our fine police officers and out great public works employees, all of whom came in as soon as the storm hit (whether they were off work or not), and immediatelywent to work to clear the streets for emergency vehicles and protect the residents of Overland, throughout the City of Overland.

I prefer that response to the Mayor calling into the City to say that Chief Herron had her authority to direct public works (though he had been already doing that for hours as is his roll being he is the City's Emergency Manager), so she could continue her fun at the Casino. If there was anyone who took care of themselves first, before the people, it was clearly Gamblin' Ann.

Mr. Owensby goes on to say we should ask the Mayor's Critics: "Where we you and what did you do when people needed you during the recent emergency?" Well Mr. Owensby, unlike you I have not desire to try to score political points or get recognition for my efforts during the recent storm. If you want to know what I and others like me did, why not get out and ask the residents. I know my neighbors will tell you all about.

For the record sir, the Overland Community Center was not the only place to find people in need. There were critics as well as supporters of the ORT working hard to help their neighbors and their families. For you to suggest that they did nothing simply because they did not come down to the Community Center cheapens and ignores all the good things done by residents across the City of Overland. How dare you ignore all of those good residents just to try to gain a vote or two.

Very self-serving attitude Councilman Owensby. Though honestly, I have come to expect nothing less. One more thing Councilman Owensby, If I want to print this article and mail it too you should I send it to Overland or O'Fallon?

As always, I am a reasonable person. So Councilman Owensby. Publish a PUBLIC APOLOGY to all the Overland residents who's tireless efforts during the storm you ignored and I will pull this article off this site. You can contact me about this via email at overlandsailor@aol.com .

Mayor Purzner is at it again

It was said the Mayor declined the invitation to speak at the Overland Lion's Club Fair because of a previous engagement. Well, it appears that previous engagement may have been to engage in more partisan hackery and deception.

The "Angel" of Dirty Pool?

On the Mayor's personal web site you will now find a new link. That link contains 'quotes' from several council members (only those who have opposed her unethical and even illegal acts of course).

The written quotes there do not always match word for word with the Audio tracts they linked. As for the audio tracks, a grade school computer buff could analysis some of those and see the amateurish editing that was done (long pauses in the mid-sentence is generally a dead give-away). In others, its blatantly obvious that the Mayor (or whatever cronies she allows to post potentially libelous material like this on her web site) took the comments out of context.

Click here, to see and hear the amateur hour antics for yourself.

I would like to ask everyone to contact the Mayor Immediately and let her know that we residents are tired of the lawsuits and Bad Publicity for Overland. We do not need a Libel suit, and this grade school editing added to the pile. You Can Reach the Mayor at:

Overland City Hall: (314) 428-4321

Email: mayorpurzner@overlandmo.org

Or for other contact options: click here.

Don't worry though. If the Mayor does not like the heat and decides to take the information off her web site there are dozens of witnesses to this wrong doing who would gladly testify for the aggrieved council members, including myself.

Lastly, I have had enough of these childish, unethical antics. These actions are not only immoral and unethical, they are also quite possibly illegal. Libel may be a hard case to prove, but when you have the evidence of the edited audio tracks to back up the case I would imagine it would get much easier. Hopefully, this issue will be limited to suing Mayor Purzner personally, as the "information" appears on her personal web site (though the city has been foolish enough to allow her personal site to be linked to the Cities official web page).

"bad advice" and the like are excuses that are simply no longer valid. At some point people, especially people elected to positions of authority, need to be held accountable for the inactions, as well as their actions.

This is what you might call the final straw for me personally. The entire left column of this site is new. Enjoy, and put it to good use.

As always, I am a reasonable person. So Mayor Purzner. Pull that unethical content from your website and issue a PUBLIC APOLOGY to the three council members wronged by these antics and I will pull this post off this site. You can contact me about this via email at overlandsailor@aol.com .

Sunshine Law Hearing 8/23/06

Well the plaintiffs Won against the Mayor! However, that is not the end of the story. The plaintiffs won the preliminary hearing, which means they won the right to have a hearing. That hearing is set for November 28th, 2006 at 9am. The injunction continues, so all City Council Meetings will be required to be held at the Community Center until that time.

The Judge was irritated on several occasions. What it comes down to I think it that she was aggravated with the length of time the preliminary hearing took. At one point there was a motion to join the preliminary hearing and the actual hearing, which she denied. That would have allowed this issue to be concluded when this hearing was done. The judge stated later that perhaps she should have allowed that. She said now it was her "buyer's remorse" for not doing so.

The Judge did however state that they would not be going over what was already covered in the preliminary hearing and that she would only be hearing argument moving forward from there. She even mentioned that this issue will be resolved in that one day even if they have to "work into the wee hours of the night".

In this hearing we seemed to get to the heart of the Mayor's Attorney's defense strategy. There are two main points here.

One is that she is not the proper party to sue. That she is not the City and that the City is the party that is responsible here.

The other is that she does not have the authority to move the meeting. That moving the meeting requires a vote of the council.

Well, as to the first part of her defense, it is true that government officials tend to be personally insulated from their actions in lawsuits. However, in this case the City has stipulated, in the Court room that they expect an attendance of more then 160 people in the foreseeable future and want to hold the meetings in the Community Center. The Majority of the City Council has voted to do that several times, and the Mayor has chosen to oppose that measure. If the Mayor is going to ignore the will of the City Council then she is effectively "going rogue" in my opinion, and should be on her own in regard to any litigation that results from those actions.


The second part hinges on the idea that it requires a 5 vote majority to pass anything at the council. The standard thinking here is that we require 5 votes to pass an Ordinance but only a quorum to conduct city business, and a simple majority of those present is required to pass measures that are not ordinances. I have expressed my disagreement with the idea that 5 votes are required to pass on ordinance when there are less then 8 members on the City Council. The ordinance in question here is:

110.260: ORDINANCES -- BILL REQUIRED -- VOTE REQUIRED
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. (Code 1961 §2-29; CC 1976 §2-121) (source)

As I have stated previously, the above ordinance requires "A Majority of the members elected to the City Council". Currently we have 7 elected members to the council. Any grade school student could tell you that a majority of 7 is 4. Furthermore, if we were to appoint someone to fill that seat, they would not be "elected" so I believe it could be argued that their vote would not count in this regard.

So, at least in part, this case seems to hinge on the idea of what makes a majority on the City Council. GOOD! I would love a judges ruling on that. If anyone has any case law related to this issue (I tried to look up the various cases reference by the Mayor's Attorney but had no luck finding them on "FindLaw"), I would LOVE to see it.


The Mayor's Attorney once again asked the court to take judicial notice of a long list of sections in Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 77. I am surprised that the judge has not lost it on him over this since he has insisted on asking the court to take judicial notice of various parts of chapter 77 about every day of the hearing (sometimes repeating sections) when the Judge already took judicial notice of the entirety of Chapter 77 on the first day.

Reviewing some of these recommendations causes me to wonder if he is just pulling things out of the chapter at random. Why cite 77.250 which gives the city the authority to hire a city administrator or cite 77.042 which defines the role of a city administrator if we have yet to hire one? Is he suggesting that this would not have happened if we had one? Perhaps, but then his client needs to propose someone to the council for a vote if she wants to fill the job.

He sites 77.590. Now this on is interesting. Feel free to click that link and review it in it's entirety. The part I find most interesting:

...The council may enact and make all necessary ordinances, rules and regulations; and they may enact and make all such ordinances and rules, not inconsistent with the laws of the state

So, if Ordinance 110.150 which covers council meetings states in part:

The City Council shall hold regular meetings on the second (2nd) and fourth (4th) Mondays of each month with the exception of holidays and the months of July, August and December wherein there shall be one (1) meeting per month held on the second (2nd) Monday of the month, at the City Hall in the evening at an hour agreed upon by the Mayor and City Council....

"at City Hall" being the key.

And the Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo Chap 610) states in part:

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

"...of sufficient size to accommodate the anticipated attendance by members of the public" being the key.

Then does not 110.150 violate RSMo 610 and thus violate 77.590? It would seem to me that 77.590 simply establishes that the City Ordinances cannot violate State Law. Now any layman can tell you that Federal Law Trumps State Law, State Law Trumps County Statue, County Statue Trumps City Ordinance, etc. But in this case we have a statute directly related to 3rd class cities that makes that very plain to see.

The Mayor's defense claims that she could not move the meeting because it would violate Ordinance 110.150. They claim that to move the meeting would require a majority vote of the council and that the minimum majority is 5 votes which is why the several 4-3 votes of the council to move the meeting to the Community Center is not valid.

However, as we just illustrated above, 110.150 violates RSMo 610. So, what do the Ordinances say about that in regard to the Mayor?

SECTION 110.030: SHALL ENFORCE ORDINANCES
The Mayor shall be active and vigilant in enforcing all laws and ordinances for the government of the City, and he/she shall cause all subordinate officers to be dealt with promptly for any neglect or violation of duty; and he/she is hereby authorized to call on every male inhabitant of the City, over eighteen (18) years of age and under fifty (50), to aid in enforcing the laws.

The above enforcement requirement is in no way limited to enforcing ordinances of the City. It specifically states that the Mayor is required to enforce "all laws" as well, and since the City is not empowered to enact "law" that obviously speaks to laws of other bodies such as the Federal and State governments.

So, We know that the City can not enact an ordinance that violates state law. We also know that the Mayor is required to enforce State law. It seems obvious to me that the Mayor is delinquent in her Duties to enforce RSMo 610, the Missouri Sunshine Law as well as RSMo 77.590. Thus she is in violation of City Ordinance 110.030 and should be subject to the general penalty found in ordinance 100.150 which is up to a $1000.00 fine and up to 3 months imprisionment per incident.

That is the Heart of the Matter. The Mayor of Overland is required by Ordinance to enforce state law and she has chosen not to do so. The legal argument that her Attorney reiterated during the hearing simply does not hold water in my opinion.

What people need to realize is that in cases like this, the people who have to bring the case because the Mayor and others will not follow the law have every right under that same law to seek restitution of their legal expenses. So here we are with yet another unnecessary legal expense thanks the the Mayor's bungling.

Rumor has it that the Mayor's Attorney has submitted his first bill to the City. Since there was never a vote of the council authorizing this attorney to represent the Mayor on the City's dime there is no way the Mayor will be able to get the council votes necessary to pay the bill. I have no issue with the Mayor choosing her own council when she is sued, that is her right. However, it is not her right to expect the residents of Overland to pick up the tab.

How many more suits against the city because of the Mayor's apparent willful disregard for State Law and Statutes, Not to mention Federal Law and local ordinances will we citizens have to pay for out of the revenues of the City? That's hard to say. Now even the ACLU looks like it is getting into the act, thanks to the Mayor's blatant disregard for the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution at the July 10th, 2006 meeting. The following are copies of a letter sent to the Mayor by the ACLU (technically they are copies of copies), read them for yourself (information that was blacked out are names and phone numbers that I did not feel needed to be published on the Internet):

page 1..................page 2...................page 3(Click the documents to see them at full size)

So, how many more groups, agencies, or governmental bodies will have to file suit against the City of Overland before the Mayor decides to finally start taking legal advice from our City Attorney? At some point, the Mayor will either realize that she has to take the job of Mayor seriously, or the City of Overland will one day soon be filing for bankruptcy. Free Trash? Heck we will be lucky if we can afford paper clips at this rate.

Of course, it would not be a report on a court case without a response to Sweetpickles. She recently posted:

Posted by Sweetpickles on August 24, 2006, 9:50 pm, in reply to "Re: Clifford "
Why do you suppose that they hate it so much that I attend the meeting why are they so afraid of me???? Well I took care of that little situation !!! (source)

I am real curious to know what "situation" you "took care of" Donna. The plaintiffs won the right to have a hearing. If you "took care" of it, I would think the case would have been dismissed. But hay, it's not like this is the first time we have seen you pat yourself on the back for doing next to nothing now is it? For some reason, the phrase "grow up" comes to mind whenever I read the above linked post.

Sunshine Law Case 8/21/06

Bench approaches, Objections, Failed Offers of Proof, etc. That was the bulk of the day. The Mayor's Lawyer tried to take the court out of the scope of the actual case so many times I lost count. In this case, more time was spent on approach then actually conducting the case.

The plaintiffs rested. Now the defense is on the move. The defense tried several times to get into the issue of what constitutes a majority on the council. Does it take 4 or 5 votes to pass something? Well, we have covered that issue at length before, and though I would love to get a free judge's ruling / opinion on this issue it really has nothing to do with the Sunshine Law violation which is what this case is about.

Donna Dill testified that she conducted her own count of the attendance during the meeting. She said she counted 137 people in attendance after residents comments and 107 after the budget vote. I found it interesting that she did all this counting but did not bother to count the number in attendance before residents started. I also wondered how she could accurately count the room from that far corner at that angle. I didn't see her in possession of a notebook at the meeting, so I think it is rather impressive that someone could count a room of that size from that angle, in their head, accurately, twice, and remember it. It was also impressive that she did all this while spending the majority of the time that she did spend in the gym (as opposed to all the time she spent outside) talking to those seated around her. She did well on the witness stand though.

As for sweetpickles' post, she said: "why don't you so called residents step up to the plate and do something besides making fun of people that are doing something". The people who filed that lawsuit are residents, the person who runs this particular website is a resident, and the majority of the 352 people who when to the last city council meeting were residents. The residents are trying to do something Donna, and it will be residents who take all this into account and vote out the majority of the "ORT members" on the council come April 2007. Also sweetpickles said: "I brought pictures with me that were time and date stamped and proves my count was accurate." Actually, that time and date stamp could easily be challenged if the pictures were relevant to the court in this case at all. Time and date stamps on cameras and camcorders can be easily manipulated (I am not suggesting you did that, only that they rarely holds up as evidence). The only reason that this was not challenged was because the pictures themselves have no real bearing on the case.

Music Note raised an issue concerning this case as well. "Now if I see a crime happen in Maryland Heights, or an accident, it won't be good testimony on my part because I live in Overland?" Not at all. However, that is not exactly a good comparison. A better comparison would be: If a close personal friend of yours was accused of a crime in Maryland Heights and you testified in their defense as a resident of Overland, your testimony would be suspect to many. Not because you are a resident of Overland, but because your are potentially biased due to your close personal ties with the defendant. Now I don't see anywhere on the web where people said sweetpickles is not a good witness because of her residency (feel free to point me to whatever I may have missed though). I see places where people call her on her partisan propaganda, regular misrepresentations, and outright lies though, which of course would cause some to question a person's credibility in general.

Music Note also raised a few other issues. We have covered why the court case is taking so long before, so no reason to go into the Mayor's Attoney's antics again. In reference to Music Note's question: "If I were Rudman, I think I would have ask for a change of venue, who hasn't heard about Overland? I wonder if that is even possible?" It's an interesting question. However, a change of venue is only called for when a case has been the subject of extensive publicity AND a jury will be hearing it. In this case there is no jury. We generally assume that judges will judiciously handle cases without taking into consideration outside influences like media coverage and the like.

Councilman Owensby testified, on the stand and under oath that he sent emails out that were notated with "By Order of the Mayor" without being instructed to do so and without the Mayor being aware of the contents of those emails. I am sure some legal eagle advised him that he would not have any worries with this as the only injured party would be Mayor Purzner, who of course would not sue him over it. However, the City Clerk was admonished by the Mayor as insubordinate for actions she took, at least in part, due to such annotated emails. She has damages as a result. I think the City Clerk could sue Councilman Owensby over this issue. Furthermore, actions were taken in regards to the council meetings based on those emails. Actions that effected all of the Councilman. So, it is possible that the Councilmen could sue him as well. I doubt any of those lawsuits will happen however. One thing I am sure of though. Such unethical (and possibly illegal) actions would be clear grounds for recall should residents choose to do that. And Councilman Owensby better hope that the April election does not result in a 6 vote majority on the council because it would also be clear cause for impeachment as well.

Another interesting issue that has been raised is that the council meeting does not start until after residents comments. It is an interesting position, and if it was valid, then Donna Dill's testimony on the number of residents in attendance would be useful. It argument hinges on the fact that the meeting is not called to order until after residents comments. However, there are several reasons why this is not a viable defense.

First, there are the officially released agendas. The most recent Regularly Scheduled City Council Meeting agenda available to the public on the Overland Missouri web site is for the July 10th, 2006 meeting. I copied it below for my readers (you can check it out as the original PDF file here):

CITY OF OVERLAND
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AMENDED TENTATIVE AGENDA
JULY 10, 2006

7:15 P.M. - RESIDENT COMMENTS.

7:30 P.M. – PUBLIC HEARING
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
• June 12, 2006 Regular Council Meeting Minutes
• June 12, 2006 Executive Session Minutes
5. APPROVAL OF BILLS.
6. APPOINTMENTS.
7. REPORT OF CITY CLERK.
• Announcements
• Correspondent
• Planning and Zoning Commission
-Freedom Enterprise II, 8801 Page Avenue
-Arch Energy, 9403 Page Avenue
-Auto Concepts, 9021 Page Avenue
• Business License
• Liquor License Renewals
• Budget Message
8. CONSIDERATION OF NEW BILLS.
• BILL NO. 34-2006 Agreement with Hochschild, Bloom & Company
• BILL NO. 35-2006 Boundary Consolidation 8801 Page Avenue
• BILL NO. 36-2006 Preliminary Development Plan 9403 Page Avenue
• BILL NO. 37-2006 Capital Improvement Fund
• BILL NO. 38-2006 General Fund July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007
• BILL NO. 39-2006 Boundary Adjustment 1560 & 1602 Fairview
9. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
10. REPORT OF CHIEF OF POLICE.
11. REPORT OF MAYOR.
12. NEW BUSINESS.
13. OLD BUSINESS.
14. COMMITTEE REPORTS.
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION – Re: Litigation/Personnel/Real Estate.
16. ADJOURNMENT.

So, the Residents Comments appear on the official agenda for the meeting. What does Agenda mean? Well according to the American Heritage Dictionary:

agenda

n 1: a temporally organized plan for matters to be attended to [syn: docket, schedule] 2: a list of matters to be taken up (as at a meeting) [syn: agendum, order of business]

If the Residents comments are not part of the meeting them why would they appear on the Meeting's agenda? Furthermore, if they are not part of the meeting, then why would they be administered over by the meeting's Chairperson (the Mayor). And lastly, if they are not part of the meeting, why would Councilman Owensby have made three motions to adjourn the meeting during the discussion over whether to extend or not extend residents comments at the August 14th 2006 meeting? Do you adjourn a meeting that has not yet started? I think it is clear. The idea that residents comments are not part of the City Council Meeting is simply indefensible.

Another interesting thing happened in this case. The City Attorney (representing the city and not Mayor Purzner) stipulated officially for the court that the City anticipates an attendance at City Council Meetings in the near future to exceed the 160 limit of the Council Chambers.

There will be those who say he is doing this for the plaintiff and is actually working against the city. However, look at it from the prospective of his job as City Attorney. He is there to represent and protect the city. So, by stipulating that the city (backed up by a majority of the City Council) believes this, he helps insulate the city from future lawsuits due to the violations of the law committed by the Mayor and a minority of the City Council. What he did, did not really help the plaintiffs case any, so much as it helped protect the residents from loosing more revenues in future lawsuits do to unethical and at times illegal actions of some elected officials.

Based on my observations, the judge is fed up with the Defense Attorney, who is constantly going out of the scope of the case and taking enourmous amounts of the courts time up with unnecessary questions, and constant offers of proof in opposition to objections raised that fail to sway the judge. Furthermore, I think it is rather insulting that he asked to Judge to take official notice of approximately a dozen local ordinances and state statutes when she rules on the case. Come on now sir, it is the judge's job to take notice of relevant legal code when considering a case.

If I was a betting man, I would bet that this case will not be concluded on Wednesday, but in the end, the case will be decided for the plaintiffs. I simply do not think the defense has a case in regards to the actual violations of the Sunshine Law (and not all the extraneous issues the defense raised.

The Sunshine Law Case 8/18/06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Very disrespectful."

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

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

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

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

But wait, there is more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But wait, there is even more:

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

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

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

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

Mayor Purzner's ignorance of the Lawlikely get Overland, MO. sued (again)

At the August 9th, 2006 Special Budget Committee Meeting the Mayor, Chairman Knode, and Councilman Owensby ensured that the promotions, previously approved at the June 26th, 2006 Executive Session were removed from the General Revenue Budget Proposal. They have also notified the officers that the promotions were rescinded and stopped paying those officers their increased pay-rates related to those promotions. There is nothing legal about this action and it opens Overland up to at least 4 lawsuits that the city cannot win. What follows is what happened, you be the judge.

At the August 9th, 2006 Special Budget Committee Meeting for Overland, Missouri an issue came up that was of concern to me. At issue was a June 26th, 2006 Executive Session where the City Council, the Mayor and the Chief of Police considered 4 promotions of Overland Police Officers.

According to the publicly available section of the minutes covering the vote on the promotions at that executive session:

"Councilman May made a motion, seconded by councilman Corcoran that the promotions stand since the Ordinances and handbook were followed. The Vote was: May - Yes; Sellers - No; Corcoran - Yes; Schneider - Yes; Knode - No; O'Connell - Yes; Owensby - No. Motion carried."

At the July 10th, 2006 (regularly scheduled) City Council Meeting, The Council voted to approve the minutes of the June 26th, 2006 Executive Session. Councilman Owensby raised only one objection. That was that a motion he made to "reduce to writing" was made before, not after, the vote quoted above. There was some dispute over that. However No other objections were raised. The minutes of the June 26th Executive Session were approved by a 4-3 vote, with Councilmen Owensby, Sellers, and Knode opposing. Motion carried.

The police officers in question were promoted based on the vote of the June 26th, 2006 Executive Session. They were moved up in rank and have since received at least one paycheck that was based on their new pay rate resulting from the promotions (regardless of any potential criminal or ethical issues here I am confident that the city will likely see EOE and Wage & Hour complaints filed by these officers as well as civil lawsuits).

At the August 9th, 2006 Special Budget Committee Meeting, the woman from the city office who has been handling the budget proposals made mention that the pay increases had been removed from the budget as she was instructed to do by Mayor Purzner.

This resulted in some discussion on the matter where first Mayor Purzner suggested that the measure could not have carried in that executive session because it did not have a five vote majority. Councilman May pointed out that City Attorney Robert Herman had previously told the Council that a 5 vote Majority was not necessary for issues such as this. Councilman Owensby stated publicly at that point "Mr Herman is not our City Attorney" which was clearly inaccurate considering Overland Ordinance 112.98-19 that names Robert Herman as our city Attorney. Since no one has been properly appointed to replace him he remains our city attorney (based on MSO Chapter 77, 77.370 - section 5).

As a side note: At the August 14th, 2006 City Council Meeting the Mayor communicated 5 veto messages to the council. I am curious why the Mayor would veto measures that she says did not / could not pass and be enacted without a 5 vote majority. Could it be that the Mayor actually realizes that this is NOT required by Statute or Ordinance?

Back to the meeting:

Then, Councilman Owensby publicly stated at the August 9th, 2006 Special Budget Committee Meeting that the Mayor Vetoed the measure (referencing MSO Chapter 77, 77.280) concerning the promotions vote at the June 26th, 2006 Executive Session.

That statute requires that a veto be entered into the meeting journal (the minutes). There is no record of a veto in the publicly accessible section of the minutes from that meeting. As mentioned above, those minutes from the June 26th 2006 Executive Session were voted on and approved at the July 10th, 2006 Regularly Scheduled City Council Meeting. Neither Councilman Owensby, Mayor Purzner, nor anyone else raised a issue about a missing reference to a Veto in those minutes.

At issue here is Overland Ordinance 110.060 Where it says in part:

..that should he/she neglect or refuse to sign any ordinance and return the same with his/her objections, in writing, at the next regular meeting of the Council, the same shall become a law without his/her signature. (He or she being a reference to the Mayor)

Though this vote was not an ordinance it did concern the expenditure of funds, which it has been said, allows the Mayor to veto the measure. The Mayor showed at the August 14th, 2006 City Council Meeting that see understands the requirement to communicate vetoes to the council before the next regularly scheduled council meeting when she did just that with several council measures that were voted on and passed at the July 10th, 2006 Council Meeting. She communicated these vetoes even though none of those measures were ordinances.

The July 10th, 2006 Council Meeting was a regularly scheduled Council Meeting. Furthermore, sources say that the City Clerk had still not received any written notice of a veto action (concerning the promotions measures passed at the June 26th 2006 Executive Session) from the Mayor prior to the August 14th, 2006 City Council Meeting.

Sources say that the Mayor instructed a city office employee to remove the promotions from the Police portion of the General Revenue Budget Proposal as the measure to approve them was vetoed.

This matter is of great concern to me because there are Statutes, Laws and Ordinances that govern how our elected officials are to conduct business to ensure that things are done properly and ethically. If our Elected officials were allowed to "make up the rules as they go along" there would be no way for the citizens to ensure that the government was run ethically or fairly.

There is no official record of this veto. Chapter 77 requires that the veto be entered into the minutes, and there is not reference to it in those minutes. Further, those minutes were approved without an issue raised about the lack of a veto reference at the July 10th, 2006 Council Meeting.

Since there is no reference to the Veto happening at the June 26th 2006 Executive Session and there was no objection raised that it was not in the minutes it can be reasoned (as well as legally argued) that the veto never happened at that meeting.

Since there was no communication of a veto presented to the council at or before the July 10th, 2006 meeting it can be reasoned (as well as legally argued) that this veto never happened at all.

As a result, officers who received promotions and pay increases legally have had them taken away without any official proceeding, disciplinary action, or a vote of the City Council. They should never have had those promotions and raises pulled, and have clear and easily winnable cases in regard to Wage and Hour Labor Law in my opinion. Further, they would likely have little trouble winning a civil suit against the city based on the cities failure to follow its own policies and procedures, ordinances, and state statutes.

It does not take a law degree to see that this is wrong, all it takes is common sense and a conscience.

Mayor Puzner Reads this Blog?

Perhaps, though I suspect it is more likely one of her "handlers" who does.

I posted a challenge to the Mayor concerning some of the things on her web site. As you might imagine, I have not heard back from her or any of her "handlers". I guess, like with the Lions Fair, the Mayor's handlers do not want her to face any opposition directly. If what you say is true and accurate, what are you afraid of? You can't win the hearts and minds of the public if you refuse to speak to them.

There was one interesting change on the Mayor's site. Was it because of my post on it? There is no way to know. The Mayor had said she secured a grant of $130,000.00 for the restoration of the Legion Pool. Now the site says that she has applied for such a grant. I would love to know what specific program the administration applied to for a grant, and when. I would really like to see this application as well. However, I doubt that the Mayor or her "handlers" will discuss anything with me. They do not seem to like to discuss such things with independent thinkers (though they are welcome to prove that statement wrong).

Now, if the Mayor or her "handlers" would address all the other misrepresentations and outright lies on her web site maybe we could actually get to the business of Overland's future.
Again, I welcome any opportunity to speak with you on the various issues facing Overland Mayor Purzner. As always you are welcome to contact me via email at overlandsailor@aol.com to arrange a meeting at your convenience.

Mayor Purzner's Take on the Meeting.

Edited at 5:00PM on August 16th 2006 to add: Well the news box on the Mayor's web site is down (http://www.annpurzner.com/). I imagine that it is possible that they are changing what is posted there due to citizens like myself calling the Mayor on what it says. If it is changed then obviously the post will not match it. However, what follows was quoted from the page at the time.

Mayor Purzner's personal website has a new post about the City Council Meeting held on August 14th 2006. I would like to take it on, point for point.

It says that the Budget cuts the "exorbitant salaries" of department heads that are out of line with surrounding communities. Which Communities Mayor Purzner? I never heard of a town called comparable. I have done research on this subject, so perhaps you, or the people behind you would like to that on my research concerning the City Clerk (found here) and the Chief of Police (found here and here)? I would really like to hear what you have to say about this. The Chief of Police and the City Clerk are NOT overpaid Mayor Purzner. That is clear when someone does legitimate research.

It says [it restores services] "without reducing employees".

Though it is true the city is not laying anyone off, the city is not funding the replacement of people who have left for one reason or another. 2 Police Officer, 1 Dispatcher, 2 Public Works employees, gone with no replacements authorized.

It says the Legion Pool will be returned under this budget. Really? Where is that line item? The only thing I see is that we are going to pay someone for a study to determine the costs of restoring the pool. And why are we doing this? I am quite sure we could get free estimates from pool contractors all over town. The Mayor states that there is a Grant of $130,000.00 to restore the pool. For what I have heard it will cost more then that, but what I really would like to know is, where is this grant? Where did it come from? and do we have the money already? Please Mayor Purzner, answer these questions for us.

It says the budget "provides funds to restore the free trash to the people". OK, well how did we come to the figure presented? Does it cover the entire fiscal year (July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007) less the time of that fiscal year that has already past? Does it include the same services? You yourself Mayor Purzner said at the August 14th 2006 meeting that the city had not talked to trash hauling companies and had not received any bids. If you have not done this how can you possible assume that the trash service cost would be 1/2 of what it was going to be increased to when the city decided to stop the service? What is the source of the numbers Mayor Purzner?

You reference Councilman Owensby's statement that "Mr. Herman was draining off all the city's funds in massive lawsuits". Well, libel and slander issues aside, can we see some actual numbers on this please? I would like to see what this statement is based on. Only the publicly available information is needed, the names on the suits, the names of the attorneys, who filed vs. who defended and then the records of the city concerning what the legal costs were. I will look forward to seeing you provide this information Mayor Purzner. And while we are at it, who is paying for all the legal expenses concerning the various legal cases we are currently involved in that are the result or you not following the Missouri Statutes and Overland Ordinances? Not to mention the suits we can expect from your latest moves regarding pay.

Then there is the winner: in regard to Councilmen May, O'Connell, Corcoran, and Schneider, it says: "The admitted that they were more concerned the the Chief of Police receives over $82,000.00 in salary and the City Clerk receives over $67,000.00 in salary than representing the needs of the people. Mayor Purzner, it is my opinion that you are dangerously close to libel here since those councilmen NEVER SAID THAT. They did say that the did not want to see those salaries cut, but they said the the budget was dangerous in that it keep the Police Department and the Public Works Department undermanned. They thought that those CUTS IN SERVICES TO RESIDENTS we unacceptable.

Mayor Purzner, I sure would like to know more about this reference to the utility tax and former Mayor Norman Meyers promising to put the Utility Tax towards trash pick up. I would also like to see where, in the 14 years you were on the council that you raised this issue or attempted to correct it (assuming it is an issue at all). Please feel free to respond on this with some actual facts.

Why would residents like myself want to pay for trash pick up? Because I can afford it and I would rather see more police officers on the street. You called for letters from residents who do not want free trash service. Mine is on the way. For the rest of you please feel free to send a letter to Mayor Purzner explaining that you do not need free trash service at your home:

Mayor Ann Purzner
9119 Lackland Road
Overland, MO. 63114

or email it to: mayorpurzner@overlandmo.org

or call City Hall for the Mayor at: 428-4321

Mayor Purzner, you say:

"It is unfortunate and disturbing that Councilmen May, O'Connell, Corcoran and Schneider could be so callous to the needs of the people who they are supposed to be representing. They would rather see that a handful of cronies at City Hall receive huge pay increases than restore the services to the approximately 17,000 residents of our community".

Mayor Purzner that is an outright lie. Pure and simple. NO ONE has ever suggested a "huge pay increase" to anyone. They opposed your huge pay cuts, nothing more. The ONLY pay increase that has been put forward was Councilman O'Connell's suggestion that they give the City Employees a 6% rather then a 3% increase for cost of living to make up for the fact that they received no increases in the previous year. Are all the non-supervisory city employees the "Cronies" you mentioned Mayor Purzner?

worse still every single one of those councilman have repeatedly suggested that the city look into ways to subsidize the cost of trash service for those residents who cannot afford it

In my opinion, the truly callous actions here are those of yourself Mayor Purzner, as well as Councilman Owensby, Councilman Knode, and Councilman Sellers. You are all willing to let those residents who cannot afford to pay for the trash service continue to do so rather then come up with a compromise that would address their needs. Your 'all-or-nothing' approach is hurting the less fortunate here in our Community. It is time you stopped worrying about 'winning' on this issue and started working towards a solution that is best for the community.

Mayor Purzner, If you want you claims to be taken as anything other then the pack of half-truths and misrepresentations (not to mention one outright lie) that they are now, you need to start adding some verifiable facts and sources to what you say there. Otherwise, your site is not better then a Tabloid and cannot be taken seriously.

I would LOVE to meet with you at City Hall on these issues Mayor Purzner. PLEASE feel free to email me at: overlandsailor@aol.com so that we can schedule a time were you can provide the facts and figures that back up your claims. If you do this, and I can verify them I would be happy to post it all here to prove you're right. I look forward to hearing from you Mayor Purzner.

For those who have not visited the site since Tuesday, please remember to scroll down to see my take on the Overland City Council Meeting of August 14th, 2006.