Councilman Knode RefusesOur Interview Request

Some have wondered where I have disappeared to. Well the reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Unfortunately, I have been struggling with an Internet Access problem. Now that it is resolved I can get back to work. Expect my coverage of the September 25th, 2006 meeting to be posted this weekend.

For now however, I would like to share with you the response I received from Councilman Knode in regard to an interview request I made earlier in the week. It is unfortunate that Councilman Knode chooses not to participate in an interview where we might be able to clarify his positions on the issues. What follows is the letter he sent to me, as well as my response to his letter. You be the judge.

Please note: in the interest of clarity I changed the portions from Councilman Knode to the color blue, and colored references to other sources red. My own responses are in the normal black color.


>Dear Mr. Moyle,
>
>Thank you for your recent invitation to speak with you regarding an
>interview For your website. In all good conscience,I must
>respectfully decline your offer.

Dear Councilman Knode,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my request. It is unfortunate that you do not wish to participate. I think if you had, you would have found that my questions were designed to flesh out your positions on the various issues facing the City of Overland, nothing more.

>A review of your previous “reportings” on your website indicates to
>me a strong bias against the basic rights of your fellow citizens.
>While I will fight to the death for your right to “report” as you
>wish, such does not indicate an acceptance of your current standard
>of conduct.

Well sir I obviously disagree. My website is, in and of itself, an example of the basic rights of our citizens. I appreciate and agree with your position on the right to report, though I feel your own bias is likely clouding your judgement concerning my articles.

In every article I have written sir I have made an effort to be objective. When someone cites the law, I research it. When they are wrong, I point out why, link the readers to the law(s) in question and explain where I believe the problem is. When there are facts I source them, and report them specifically. When it comes to rumors, I rarely report them. When faced with a rumor I feel is critical enough to need to be aired I make it very clear that it is a rumor and nothing more.

A quick review of the letter you recently sent out to residents in Ward 1 is an example of what my reporting is not. For example, you state that the Mayor can appoint an interim or temporary Chief of Police and City Attorney without Council Approval:

"Then she [the Mayor] wanted to appoint a temporary or interim Police Chief and City Attorney until the Council approved permanent positions appointed by the Mayor. This is well within her rights per State Statute and City Ordinances."

I find it curious that you chose not to cite the specific Statutes and Ordinances in question. As my website clearly shows, when faced with such issues I always cite the actually law, statute, etc and link the readers to it for their own review whenever possible.

The courts have already ruled against the Mayor on this Mr. Knode. The Mayor may have the ability to fill vacancies until the next Council Meeting, however to use this power, the office would have to be vacant.

The Mayor points to Ordinance 115.020, subsection C when making her case:

SECTION 115.020C. Term Of Office. All appointive officers of the City of Overland, with the exception of the Municipal Judge(s), serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and the City Council and are intended by their appointment to be at-will employees of the City of Overland. Any appointive officer may be removed from office at will by the Mayor of the City of Overland with consent of a majority of all members elected to the Council. Any appointive officer other than the Municipal Judge(s) of the City of Overland may be removed from office by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Council independent of the Mayor's approval or recommendation. Notwithstanding the above, all appointive officers shall hold office until the next General Election at which a Mayor is chosen.

Specifically that "all appointive officers shall hold office until the next General Election at which a Mayor is chosen."

However the Mayor's case does not seem to take into account Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 77, Section 77.370, Subsection 5 which states:

5. The term of office for each of the officers is two years except the office of mayor and the marshal which are four-year terms. All officers hold office until their successors are duly elected or appointed and qualified.

The Key here being that the officer holders remains in office until their successor is duly elected or appointed and qualified.

According to Overland Ordinance 115.020, subsection B,:

SECTION 115.020
B. Other Appointive Officers. The Mayor with the consent and approval of a majority of all the members elected to the City Council shall appoint the Municipal Judge(s), City Attorney, City Prosecutor, Director of Finance, Marshal, who shall also serve as Chief of Police, Director of Finance, Street Commissioner and other appointive officers as provided by ordinance.

As you can see, to appoint an officer requires the consent of the Majority of the Council. It seems clear that to "duly appoint and qualify" would require a majority vote of those elected to the City Council.

Based on a reading of both Overland Ordinances and State Statute (realizing that State Statute trumps City Ordinance if there is a conflict) it is obvious that the Mayor was not acting within her "rights" when she attempted to replace the Police Chief and the City Attorney. As we know, the Court ruled against the Mayor on this issue.

It is of course possible that the Mayor made an honest mistake here. However, considering that the Mayor has filed an appeal, and that you yourself still refer to the City Attorney as the "Former" City Attorney publicly, it becomes more and more difficult for reasonable people to believe this was merely an honest mistake.

I would welcome your reply on this issue sir. I would honestly like to better understand your legal position on this matter.

>An open and selfish travesty is being perpetrated upon the citizen’s
>of Overland of which you are clearly aware, but have yet to honestly
>address.

>This ongoing travesty is unjust, unethical and frankly un-American.

I agree sir. An "open and selfish travesty" is definitely being perpetrated upon the Citizens of Overland. However, we seem to disagree on who the perpetrators are.

>Four individuals are denying you and all your fellow citizen’s
>their rights to FULL & FAIR REPRESENTATION; and you
>have stood by and let these repeated callous actions of a selfish
>few go un-addressed.

Sir. We disagree on this point as well. As I see it, the Mayor is equally to blame on this issue. Several on the Council have expressed concern to the Mayor about the appointment of Mr. Blonden. Their concern seems to be that they have no information on the gentleman, and have not have the opportunity to speak to him. As a result, the majority of the Council has voted against his appointment repeatedly. Perhaps if the Mayor would allow the Council to communicate with and learn more about Mr. Blonden their position would change.

Further, as can be said about the General Revenue Budget, the Mayor have made no effort to meet with others on the Council to work out a compromise. Politics, often requires compromise sir. However the Mayor refuses to discuss the issue or even consider any of the number of residents who offered their services in response to her request as an alternative. In the case of the General Revenue Budget, you as the Budget Committee Chairman and the Mayor have apparently made no effort to discuss the issues of concern for others on the Council. The Mayor offers the same appointment and the same General Revenue Budget that failed to get a majority vote before, and complains when they do not pass again. This is, in my opinion sir, arrogance at its "finest". If you and the Mayor want to move the City forward you are going to have to allow the entire Council to participate. Politics is the art of compromise.

>You have purported yourself as a fair arbiter of facts, yet you have
>failed miserably to report the most basic and fundamental facts
>available to you.

>You have stood by and passively watched as the most basic rights
>of your fellow citizens have been trampled time after time again
>without even a syllable of concern.

>Your “reporting” and lack of straight critical thought on this
>ongoing travesty is frankly unexplainable by any common measure
>forthright journalistic conduct.

With all do respect sir, I deal in facts, examples, and evidence. I leave the generalizations and suggestions of wrong doing to the playground where they belong. If you would like to reasonably discuss where you think my conduct is lacking, then feel free to cite examples to support your "argument".

>People now and in our history have struggled, fought and died to
>establish these most important of rights and freedoms. These basic
>rights that have been protected with sweat, honor and blood.

I agree sir. The election process is also one of those very important rights. We as Citizens of the United States vote for those we feel will best do the job in question within the bounds of the Laws, Statutes, Ordnances and Rules that govern their position. When an elected official chooses to ignore those restrictions and operate outside the law, they insult and ignore the efforts of those who fought so bravely for those freedoms. Veterans like myself take great offense when elected officials choose to abuse their office. We swore to uphold and defend the Constitution for all enemies both foreign and domestic sir.

>You have stood by, silent and uncaring while these basic rights of
>your fellow citizens to have FULL & FAIR REPRESENTATION have
>been purposely denied and diminished by a few within our
>community.

>This conduct of selective concerns for citizen’s rights
>is at least……..unbecoming.

With all do respect sir, when suggesting that there are those who address "selective concerns for citizen's rights" I would advise that you consider reviewing your own actions, as well as the actions of the Mayor. When considering what the law is on a particular issue one needs to review the entire law, as well as all laws, statutes, ordinances, and rules that relate to the issue. That is what I make an honest attempt to do on my site sir. I would welcome a response from you that included your specific issues with my reporting, and / or your specific legal positions on the various issues we face.

>As such, you have treated the repeated votes to deny basic rights to
>your fellow citizen’s of Overland…..AS IF IT WERE NOT EVEN
>HAPPENING.

Again, I have addressed this issue repeatedly sir. You have yet to discuss the specific issues you have with my analysis.

>It is my hope you will find a way to join myself and the other
>concerned citizens in the honorable fight to restore the rights of
>all of Overland’s citizens to FULL & FAIR REPRESENTATION within
>our own local government.

That is my hope for you and others sir. Until you Councilman Knode, as well as, Councilman Owensby, Councilman Sellers, and Mayor Purzner realize that to properly govern you need to work within the legal limitations of your positions and work to develop mutually agreeable compromises when you do not have the votes to pass various bills, the problems in Overland will continue.

I watched you as the Budget Committee Chairman sir. When it came to the discussions about the Capital Improvements Budget you were fair, you listened to the positions of all sides and you worked to develop compromises. The result was that the Capital Improvements Budget passed unanimously. I reported on this sir, pointing out how well I thought you handled the meetings concerning the Capital Improvements Budget.

However, you have yet to allow any discussion on the General Revenue Budget, where there are serious differences of opinion on various issues. It is that failure to try to work towards compromise, as you did with the Capital Improvements Budget, that is most responsible for the failure to pass the General Revenue Budget. I also reported on this, pointing out that I was disappointed that the "spirit of compromise" you appeared to promote as Chairman, ceased the moment the General Revenue Budget came up.

This is a perfect example of the lack of communication, and the lack of effort to find compromises on numerous issues (like the appointment to vacant seat in Ward 3) that are holding Overland back and preventing this City from Moving forward.


>Sincerely
>Richard Knode

I welcome your reply sir, should you choose to do so. If you want the Residents to seriously consider your positions and arguments you are going to have to state them seriously and professionally. That would include citing the specific concerns, in specific terms, and referencing specific laws and the like. I deal in specifics sir, those who chose to toss around unfounded accusations are the ones causing the problems for Overland.

Thank you for your time and Consideration,

John Moyle


CC: http://www.theoverlandexaminer.org/

It appears that this is as close as we shall get to an interview with Councilman Knode. I cannot control the paranoia or biased attitudes of those elected officials we are interested in talking to and learning from. All I can do is make the honest attempt to reach out to them.

Interview with Councilman May

Saturday, September 16, 2006 I had the opportunity to discuss some of the issues facing Overland with Councilman Jerry May of Ward 1 (one of my 2 Council Members). I hope other members of the Council and perhaps even the Mayor will agree to interviews in the coming weeks as well. Councilman May deserves credit for being the first one to be kind enough to consent to an interview.

I had a long list of questions for Councilman May and he answered them all. We had a great discussion. I found him to be straightforward, laid back, and genuine, characteristics I would not have expected from anyone in politics. However, the more I am involved locally, the more I learn that there are a lot of people who are involved because of what they believe they can do for the community rather than what they can get out of it.

I think the most important comment that came out of this discussion was when Councilman May said "It is not about Mayor Purzner, it is about her actions". He wanted to make it clear that his concerns are about some of the actions the Mayor has taken, and the lawsuits that have followed as a result. Councilman May expressed repeatedly to me that he wished the Mayor and others would open up lines of communication and try to work together to find mutually agreeable compromises. He was adamant however that the Council needs to fight to ensure the Mayor follows the rules or we will just end up with more and more lawsuits. Councilman May doesn't feel that compromise is impossible, but knows that nothing can happen without communication.

Councilman May and I discussed the various letters that have been left in people's mail boxes and on their doors throughout Overland. He told me that he has only received 3 calls from residents and that he had good, productive conversations with those willing to talk. He said he was considering producing a letter of his own, possibly for publication in the Localite.

Some of the questions many of us have had were addressed. I learned that there has been no effort on the Part of the Mayor, or the Budget Committee Chairman Councilman Knode, to attempt to address the differences the Council has concerning the general revenue budget since it was voted down the second time. They do not appear to be making any attempt at all to negotiate or try to find a compromise. As a result, I suspect the next regularly scheduled Council meeting will present the same Budget as was presented the last two times that failed to get a Majority vote. I confirmed that the Mayor's General Revenue Budget proposal does not fund filling the 4 police officers and 1 dispatcher vacancies at the Overland Police Department or the 2 vacancies at Public Works.

Councilman May explained that the City Attorney has stated repeatedly that it requires a vote of 5 members of the Council to pass and Ordinance or a Resolution, but only a simple majority to pass anything else. I was also able to confirm that the Mayor did not Veto the promotion of 4 police officers at the June 26th, 2006 executive session and that the Mayor also did not present a Veto of those promotions to the City Council at or before the July 10th regularly scheduled City Council Meeting.

I asked Councilman May about the issues we currently have with Residents comments. He told me that he thinks all the residents who ask to speak should be able to. He's concerned that the city is risking a lawsuit over such a minor issue. As Councilman May pointed out, we have voted to extend residents comments at both the August 14th and the July 10th meetings, under Mayor Purzner. We also voted to extend residents comments as needed under the previous Mayor. Precedent has been set in Overland to do this, and Councilman May is concerned that failing to extend comments at this point is unfair to the residents. It takes the opportunity for residents to participate away, and it will likely take City funds away due to the costs of lawsuits that are likely to follow. I happen to agree. As I understand it, only 6 other residents submitted cards to be able to speak at the September 11th Council Meeting. The Council was forced to argue for over 80 minutes on whether or not to allow 18 more minutes of comments. Why would we risk losing lawsuits that could cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars or more over just 18 minutes of additional comments from residents? I am surprised at Mayor Purzner's position on this issue considering what a strong advocate for residents comments she used to be when she was a member of the City Council.

When I asked Councilman May what he thought about calling the meeting to order, calling the roll, and then starting resident comments, he said he would be all for it if it will give us a more orderly meeting and protect the rights of the residents. Councilman May explained that he voted with the entire Council to adjourn the September 11th meeting because he felt they were accomplishing nothing other than risking another lawsuit. Councilman May also wanted it added to the record that he and several others on the Council opposed restrictions that violated the rights of Overland residents.

I asked Councilman May about Councilman Knode's recent letter to Ward 1 where he states that the Mayor was within her rights to appoint an interim Police Chief and City Attorney. Councilman May said that the Court ruled against this, these men had not died or resigned so there was no vacancy needing an emergency replacement.

My own research shows that according the Missouri Revised Statues, Chapter 77, Section 77.370 Subsection 5: "The term of office for each of the officers is two years except the office of mayor and the marshal which are four-year terms. All officers hold office until their successors are duly elected or appointed and qualified." (emphasis mine). Meaning basically that officers remain in their positions until properly relieved. In this case, according to Missouri Revised Statues, Chapter 77, Section 77.340: "The mayor, with the consent and approval of a majority of the members elected to the city council, shall have power to appoint a street commissioner and such other officers as he may be authorized by ordinance to appoint." (emphasis mine). The law seems VERY clear on this issue. Of course I would welcome the opportunity to Interview Councilman Knode on this and other issues facing the City of Overland.

When asked about Trash Collection, Councilman May confirmed that the Trash collection bill had gone up to 1.2 million dollars, which is why the City was forced to end the service. The choices are to reduce police officers on the street or ask the residents to pay for the trash collection. He told me the Mayor has expressed in past meetings that we could stop collecting yard waste and recycling as a way to reduce to service costs.

Consider: the Mayor's own comments on this at the Nov. 8th 2005 City Council Meeting (that I recounted in this article):

From the Minutes of the Nov. 8th 2005 Council Meeting:

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

Councilman May stated he feels that having fully staffed Police and Public Works departments has got to come first, for the safety of the residents. Most residents I have talked to seem to agree, once they realize their choice is to pay for their trash collection with $15.00 a month, or 4 less Police Officers, 1 Less Dispatcher, and 2 Less Public Works employees.

I asked Councilman May what we could do to make our City more "business-friendly". He believes that we need to advertise. He suggested the rolling marquee that was included in the City Capital Improvements Budget and would like to see a second one added in the future. Keeping the public informed and promoting local businesses through these signs are a good place to start. He would like to see the City return to the table to work out a plan to improve the Woodson shopping strip between Midland and Lackland.

Councilman May also feels we need to focus on light industry at Page and Woodson because the City has not been able to attract any anchor retailers to that site in years. Councilman May pointed out that light industry would bring in jobs for the residents. It would also be a boost to local retailers and restaurants as the people working in the area would be likely to shop and eat here on their lunch hours (resulting in higher sales tax revenues for Overland as well).

Councilman May agreed that the Public Works department is lacking in direction and leadership. He suggested that we need to refocus Public Works on customer service. One solution for business would be to produce a check list of requirements that they can obtain in advance to better allow them to plan.

His most interesting idea to me was something that addresses a host of problems, all at the same time. Councilman May said "If you are going to have a Police department, then have the best one you can possibly have." He believes that holds true for Public Works, City Inspectors, Dispatchers, etc. Councilman May believes that if you develop these departments to be the best, not only would the residents and businesses of Overland be better served, but you have the potential of contracting these services to other Municipalities as well (as we currently do with dispatching). This could reduce the costs of these departments by providing revenue steams from them. The end result could be better services for everyone at a much lower cost.

I asked Councilman May about hiring a City Administrator. He told me he fully supported it. He felt that the City could be run more effectively with a full time Administrator and that the Administrator could actively work to bring more businesses to Overland. He wants to ensure that the right person is hired for the job. As a result he supports using the East-West Gateway Association (assuming they would even come back considering what happened in the past) to ensure that the best qualified person, not the best politically connected person, was hired.

When asked, Councilman May also expressed support for the idea of looking into developing a volunteer corps of residents to help out in times of emergency. He is open to the idea of funding training and the possible insurance costs increases if it helps make Overland a safer and more secure community. We can also look in the host of available grants from FEMA and the AmeriCorps and other Federal Agencies.

I asked Councilman May about several rumors that have been circulating around town lately. He told me he did not know if the Mayor was attempting to sell Wild Acres, that all he has seen or heard are rumors on the subject. He told me that he voted against paying a Consultant the Mayor wanted to see paid $800.00 at the August 14th City Council Meeting because there was never a vote of the Council to authorize his services and the Mayor has produced nothing in writing to verify what the gentleman was hired to work on. The Council has not even been given the opportunity to speak with this person. It is my understanding that the Mayor has still not given the Council any information on this matter.

Councilman May expressed concern over Mayor Purzner's personal website. He stated that he felt the Council has been handling so many problems and issues that this one slipped by but that he felt they were negligent in not addressing it. He is greatly concerned with how the connection of this website to the official City site looks. He was concerned that people would feel the views expressed on the Mayor's site were that of Overland because of this connection. Councilman May further explained that he feared the City could be entangled in yet more lawsuits should anyone choose to file a suit against the Mayor over some of the content on her site. The link to her site from the City site could suggest approval of the content by the City of Overland. A smart attorney could file against the City over issues regarding the Mayor's personal site as a result. Even if the City won such a suit we would still lose due to the expense of defending against it in court.

Finally, I asked him about what might happen should the Mayor be recalled. With all the rumors around about various recall efforts it is possible that the Mayor could be recalled. If the Mayor was recalled, Councilman May, being the President Pro Tem of the Council, would replace the Mayor. He told me he hoped if a recall did happen that the City would be able to quickly get a Mayoral election on the ballot so that the people of Overland could select their own choice to replace Mayor Purzner.

Councilman May says he wants to move forward, but without lines of communication being opened by the Mayor and some on the Council he feels it will be difficult, if not impossible. Compromise is the only option, but it takes two willing sides to exercise it. So far, we only seem to have one.

Overland City Council"almost" meeting on Sept. 11, 2006

Where do you begin when you attempt to report on a meeting that never actually happened? Well, the meeting did happen in some respects so we will focus there. As was clearly marked on the Meeting Agenda, Residents comments started at 7:15PM. What was also clearly marked was that resident comments ended at 7:30PM. See it for yourself:

Sept. 11, 2006 Agenda(click the image to see as full sized)

A review of other Agendas from previous meetings (found here) shows that the Residents Comments have always been listed simply as starting at 7:15PM. In my opinion, this illustrates a clear intent to restrict residents comments, regardless of past practices where the council has voted to allow the comments to continue to ensure all residents who asked to speak could be heard. Considering the fact the the ACLU has already warned the Mayor in writing, I feel this was unwise.

The Mayor claims that her issue is the need to get the business of the City done. I understand her concern. However, the law on this matter is clear, you cannot limit residents comments. The Mayor should be fully aware of this legal issue as the ACLU sent her the following letter detailing that, as well as other potential legal issues concerning the way she has been handling residents comments at the City Council meets. Here is that Letter:

.

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

To make matters worse for the City of Overland, Anthony E. Rothert, ESQ. The Legal Director of the Eastern Missouri ACLU was in attendance. He was taking notes, giving out his card to those who were not allowed to speak or were thrown out of the meeting, and I understand he made the comment that to merely document (in a legal format) all the various violations he witnessed at the meeting would take days. I briefly spoke to Mr. Rothert and he gave me permission to post his email address should anyone who feels their rights were violated need to contact him. That email address is tony@aclu-em.org.

In my opinion The Mayor has conducted herself in various ways that have opened the City of Overland to lawsuits past, present and future. We have already had several lawsuits against Overland, caused by allegedly improper and in some cases illegal actions of the Mayor. In this case, the ACLU was kind enough to send a letter to the city warning of the potential liability risk as a way to avoid litigation. The Mayor apparently choose to ignore it.

It is my opinion that the Mayor is acting under the belief that she cannot personally be sued for her actions as Mayor. Which would be based on the following City of Overland Ordinance.

SECTION 115.080:
INDEMNIFICATION OF CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
A. All elected and appointed officials and public employees of the City of Overland shall hereinafter be fully indemnified and held harmless by the City from any and all costs, attorney fees, claims, causes of action, judgments or damages, either actual or punitive, which may be assessed against said Overland officials or public employees as a result of any action or omission of that public official or employee in the course or conduct of their public office or employment.

B. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as an express or implied waiver of sovereign immunity of the City of Overland as provided by the laws of the State of
Missouri.

C. The indemnity expressed in this Section shall not extend to any person who shall commit an act constituting a misdemeanor or felony as defined by the laws of the State of Missouri or the United States. (CC 1976 §2-23; Ord. No. 2201 §§1--3, 8-26-85)

There has been some speculation that an Officer of the City needs to show they made a reasonable effort to not operate outside of the law, statutes or ordinances. I am not sure about that requirement as I have not seen it in writing. However, the Mayor will not even consult our City Attorney, so if that requirement is true, it is obvious in my opinion that she is not making a reasonable effort.

One thing to remember: If the Mayor continues to insist on using her own attorney (as is her right), she would be responsible for that attorney's bill unless there is a majority vote of the City Council the authorize that attorney to represent the Mayor at the City's expense.

The bottom line here is that the Residents who's first amendment rights are being violated have a pretty air tight case against the City. The ACLU has already warned the city that continued violations will likely result in legal action against us, so I think this case is inevitable. Unfortunately, the case will be against the City, and the Money lost will come from the City. That is money that could have been used for street repairs, kids programs, filling the 4 vacancies at the Police Department, and more.

One resident commented that "No matter who wins this war Overland looses!" She was right, the City is loosing business, funds, and we are taking a major hit on our reputation. No matter who "wins" we will still loose. However, suggesting that everyone on the Council is to blame is not accurate in my opinion. Councilmen May, O'Connell, Corcoran and Schneider were not up there opposing the Mayor herself. They were opposing her actions. Actions that allegedly violated the rights of residents and actions that could easily cost the City a great deal of funds to lawsuits we cannot hope to win.

One of the Resident Speakers was the City Treasurer. She was asking for direction from the Council and advice from the attorney on how to proceed with an issue. At issue was the fact that the City is currently undergoing an audit (by the state I believe). It is my understanding that this is a semi-regular occurrence. The Auditors are questioning why there are three checks written to three individuals, apparently signed by the Mayor but not by the Treasurer, in the safe at City Hall.

The City Treasurer has refused so sign these checks because there were never any Council votes, Ordinances or Contracts authorizing the city to contract services from any of these individuals, one of them being the Mayor's Personal Attorney, Mr. Rudman. There was never a vote of the council to authorize Mr. Rudman to represent the Mayor at the City's expense, and there was a specific vote of the Council NOT to pay that particular bill. Yet the Mayor has chosen to attempt to get the city to pay that bill anyway. I believe the Mayor is on very thin ice with this issue. Consiuder this:

RSMo 77.460. Corrupt allowance of claim, how punished.
Any member of the council or officer of the city who shall, in official capacity, or under color of his office, knowingly or willfully or corruptly vote for assent to, or report in favor of, or allow or certify for allowance, any claim or demand against the city, which claim or demand shall be on account of or under color of a contract or agreement not authorized by law and the ordinances of the city, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

There was no vote of the Council, no Ordinance and no contract that allows the Mayor to pay Mr. Rudman's bill with City funds. Her insistence on doing so, in my opinion constitutes an attempted violation of the above ordinance.

As we have discussed before, allegedly, the Mayor has refused to pay the City Treasurer her monthly pay. As we have heard from several sources, the Mayor put in writing the Treasurer would not be paid until an unauthorized check to Mr. Ben Branch was signed by the treasurer. We have also been told by several sources that the Mayor told the Treasurer verbally that she would not be paid until that check, as well as the check to Mr. Rudman and a consultant (on another matter we assume) are signed by the Treasurer.

We can clearly see based on the Ordinance above that the Treasurer cannot do this without risking criminal charges as she is an officer of the City and there has never been a vote of the Council, Contract or Ordinance authorizing any of those payments.

Now, if the above allegations above are true. Then in my opinion the Mayor could be guilty of more then a simple Ordinance violation. Consider the following:

Section 576.010 Bribery of a public servant.
1. A person commits the crime of bribery of a public servant if he knowingly offers, confers or agrees to confer upon any public servant any benefit, direct or indirect, in return for:
(1) The recipient's official vote, opinion, recommendation, judgment, decision, action or exercise of discretion as a public servant; or
(2) The recipient's violation of a known legal duty as a public servant.
2. It is no defense that the recipient was not qualified to act in the desired way because he had not yet assumed office, or lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.
3. Bribery of a public servant is a class D felony.

Call it bribery, call it extortion, or call it blackmail. Whatever you call it, anyone can look at this and see it is wrong. If the Mayor is refusing to pay an employee because that employee will not violate laws, statutes or ordinances for the Mayor then the Mayor needs to be held accountable. I think it is high time the State Attorney General weighed in on violations like this:

Missouri Attorney Generals Office

Jefferson City Main Office
Missouri Attorney General's Office

Supreme Court Building

207 W. High St. P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Email: ag@ago.mo.gov

Phone : 573-751-3321

Fax: 573-751-0774

Also try:

Nixon For Governor
P.O. Box 143,

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
Phone: 573-761-5333

Fax: 573-761-4817

Email: Contact@NixonForGovernor.com

When you contact ask for:

Demand an Investigation into the issues facing Overland

and the Mayor's mountain of alleged legal violations.

In the end the Regardless of Attempts to operate by Robert's Rules of Order, citing the risk of even more litigation being filed against the city, and endless attempts made to try to discuss the matter, Councilman Sellers, Councilman Owensby and Mayor Purzner (Councilman Knode walked out earlier in the meeting) seemed unwilling to even consider anything said by the other Council Members. As a result, stating that he could not continue to participate in further legal violations, Councilman Corcoran moved to Adjourn, Councilman O'Connell seconded and the Council unanimously agreed to adjourn, a meeting that never even got past the roll call.

Personally, I would like to those who had business with the City of Overland and the Residents of the City of Overland. The Business of the City did not get done again. In my opinion, this is because the Mayor Stubbornly refuses to even consider the legal implications of her actions. The Mayor's Motto seems to be I'm the Mayor and I can do what I want!

With all do respect ma'am, if you do not start consulting the City Attorney and making a effort to do business in a manor that is consistent with the Law, State Statutes, and City Ordinances (let alone the U.S. Constitution), there will be no revenues left in Overland for you to do anything with after all the Lawsuits you are likely to cause. PLEASE consider acting in the public interest from this day forward, before it is too late.

September 11th, 2006

Having grown up in New Jersey, 45 minutes or so for New York City by train, September 11th 2001 hit me hard. That is not to say that people that lived elsewhere were not as negatively impacted by this tragedy or worse then I was. However, the experiences of most that live in Overland might be a bit different then mine.

The Town I grew up in lost 36 people (if memory serves) to September 11th, 2001. Forever burned in my mind are not just the events that lead up the fall of the towers (it so happened I had been off that morning and watched the entire event live on the news). My memories include the pain I could hear in my parents voices when we talked. From the house I grew up in (where they still lived at the time) you could see the smoke rising, and it continued to do so for a long time. The shock of the event changed everyone on some level. Most of my friends and family became different people in some ways. This event sent ripples of change through our nation as a whole.

In the late 1990s I took the women who later became my wife to meet my parents for the first time and we visited New York City while we were there. We experienced the observation deck of the World Trade Center together, it was a first for both of us (I never did the "tourist things" when I visited New York as a young man). We can never revisit that event outside of our minds now. I have been back to New Jersey 3 times since then, and I have avoided ground zero each time. I do not want those who attacked us on that day to replace my memories of events in the square or my wife's first visit to NYC with the vision of the aftermath. When they finally build a building there I will be there, along with my wife and my daughter. We will visit whatever observation deck they create, as well as the memorial that will surly be a part of the site.

I will let the triumph of a new, tall building rising up in the place of the towers take the place of my older good memories, but nothing else.

We should NEVER forget what happened that day. Prior to 9/11 we did not take treats against us very seriously. We know now that we can no longer afford to think like that. However, this sort of thinking is not limited to our country. We need to take all threats seriously as individuals and families as well.

September 11th, 2001 should have taught our country many lessons. Whether it has or not is perhaps debatable. It should have taught us all something about personal preparedness as well. However, based on what many experienced in the recent electrical outage here in Overland, perhaps we need a refresher.

September 11th was a tragedy beyond measure, and one that will be burned into the minds of everyone who was alive at that time, forever. The horrors of 9/11 are unquestionable. However, what comes from it might be. I would rather be able to say that 9/11 helped save lives in the long run.

Below I have included a handful of links to information to help us all plan for disasters, be they acts of terror or acts of God. If we are all prepared to care for ourselves to some degree, we help strengthen our country and our community, making us a "harder target" in the face of any disaster or emergency. Take a look at some of the information and suggestions on the following sites. it is my hope that they will help everyone plan and prepare to keep our families safe in the event of potential future disasters I hope we never see:

• FEMA's Disaster Information
• FEMA's "Are you Ready?" Guide
• Ready America's Family Plan recommendations
• American Red Cross's Recommendations
• GSA's Family Disaster Kit Recommendations
• NOAA's Story Ready Program
• The American Heart Association on CPR

I hope this information is useful for everyone. Never Forget what happened on September 11th, 2001. Most importantly, learn from it, as well as other disasters that have struck our nation and community. Please take a few moments with the links above and learn about the various disasters that can effect us, and the ways you can better to protect yourself and your family. Knowledge is power but preparation is survival.

What better time to consider ways to better protect your family then on the anniversary of a national tragedy like 9/11? Maybe it should be a holiday, a day when Americans checks on their disaster supplies and takes time to learn about new ways to protect their families.

Who is this guy?

Recently I decided to return to school. I signed up for a class covering online journalism at UMass - Amherst and now I am struggling to re-learn how to be a student. One of the requirements for that class is to have a Blog at the college. That new Blog for my class has my name on it. Though I have not made much of an effort to hide my identity (I even put my real name on business cards I created to promote the site), I have not really "come out" on this web site. Concealing one's identity online has always been a recommended safety precaution and one I have followed consistently. However, there are times when we need to stand behind what we say and do. As you can see from the top of the left column on this page I have decided to do just that.

There are those who have cautioned me against revealing myself. They are concerned for me and I appreciate it. However, being a card carrying member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU, the Institute for Justice, the NRA, the Investigative Reporters & Editors Association, the National Newspaper Association, the Online News Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, and well as the Cato Institute, the New America Foundation, Common Cause, and a host of smaller groups, I suspect that I will have more than enough assistance availible to counter anything "they" might try.

Though some have warned that there are people out there who would seek to cause me trouble or even harm, I was surprised recently to find out that such activities are not limited to just one side. Due to a recent false rumor being spread concerning myself and my motivations I decided the best way to counter such things is to be up front and open with everyone. There are those who question my choosing to talk to supporters of their opposition. For them, all I can say is that real learning requires multiple sources. If you limit your information flow to one source or another, you never getting the whole story. That said, one can listen to the devil without choosing to follow him.

As to the rumor mongers' motivations I have no idea. I suspect they saw this as an opportunity to gain status with their peers at my expense. Maybe they are the type of people who do not feel like they are "up" unless they beat everyone around them "down". I have no idea what their reasoning was as those who started this rumor never choose to ask me about it first. Something I would have thought any adult would do. This rumor is of course false, but I doubt that really bothers them if they got what they were after.

So, with the prospect of a career change that will require that I be out in the open, my recent foray into college education, and the actions of rumor mongers here at home I decided to "out" myself this weekend, before Monday's Council Meeting (Sept 11th, 2006 - 7:00PM at the Overland Community Center (9225 Lackland Rd)). This way, anyone who has anything to say to me, be it a complement, a complaint, or an accusation, can come chat with me before or after that meeting.

Stealing a concept from one of our Councilmen that I admire you'll find me at every Overland Event. I'll be the not so good looking guy in the U.S. Navy Seabee cap.

John Moyle
aka: OverlandSailor
(I never said I was pretty)

My name is John Moyle, I have been a resident of Ward 1, Overland for 8 years, and I have been married to my wonderful wife for the same amount of time. We have a precocious 5 year old daughter whom I am very proud of and some fantastic relatives and neighbors that live close by.

I have had a rather colorful past full of wonderful experiences. I have worked in numerous fields and a host of jobs. They paid the bills, but they fell short of being a personal success. I am a Veteran of the U.S. Navy, and I though I am sure there are those who would waste the money to check anyway, I have a clean record with the authorities.

When it comes to politics I have been there, done that and have little faith in those who want the jobs until proven otherwise. When it comes to my personal politics and beliefs, well that would be a HUGE post (worse than this one). If you want to know them, do a web search for "Overland Sailor". I have used that identity for years and I have debated many, many political issues on various sites. I am sure you will find many things I have had to say. However, be advised, as we get older, we get wiser so if you want to know where I stand on something, feel free to ask me. My opinion on something may have changed over time. A good place to start (as well as a great place to discuss issues reasonably) would be the Americas Debate Forums.

Several months before the election in April 2006, I started going to the City Council meetings to help me decide who I was going to vote for. I had watched Council meetings on Charter cable channel 18 before, but only when I happened to notice them in the TV listings. For the most part I was blissfully ignorant of what was going on in Overland other than what I had heard from my neighbors. However, the more I watched the more I became concerned.

After the election I was disappointed. My candidate didn't win. But I was willing to give the new Mayor a shot. She blew that shot in a manner of days when she chose to try to remove Chief Herron and City Attorney Herman from office improperly. But, I thought it was worth a second chance (we all make mistakes right?). We all know how things have gone since. As a result of her actions, there is no way I could possibly support the Mayor. She has only herself to blame for the troubles she faces now and will likely face in the forseeable future. Unfortunately, those troubles are costing Overland alot both in our wallets, and our City's reputation.

I been to every meeting that followed the election. As the procedural violations continued I decided it was time to try to do something. First I created Overland Speaks Out!, a forum site I designed to be a community resource that I hoped would open up lines of communication, promote local businesses, and help get residents engaged in our community. However, from the beginning the site was dominated by political conversations that prevented many groups from being willing to get involved. Then, the site slowly died off in use (though people hit the links list daily). The project was a failure in my opinion. However, when we learn from our mistakes we become better for them. Some time in the future you can expect to see a new site made better by the education I gained from OSO.

Being frustrated with the way most of the sites we have were handling the issues facing Overland, I decided to take on creating a Blog myself. I have done a blog or two before, so it was not too complicated to get done. My mission was to challenge our politician's claims. I choose to combat rhetoric with research and common sense. This site you are reading right now is that Blog and it has been a success thus far in my view.

Since my motivations have been questioned I thought I would spell them out. For starters I have no interest in running for political office ever. My interest is in becoming a journalist, a member of the "forth estate". Running for or winning political office would be a major conflict of interest for me.

I have no desire to lead any local groups. Though I have participated with some local groups (and I plan to join more as we speak), in order to be as objective as possible I feel taking on a leadership role of any kind would make objectivity difficult (and could also be detrimental to those groups at times).

I believe Overland has the potential to be a real crowning jewel of our area. It will take a lot of hard work to get there, and it will be a time investment measured in years, if not decades. To succeed, several issues need to be addressed. We need better leaders. We need visionaries who can see the grand Overland of the future in their minds and are willing to work to get us there. We need more residents to get involved, both in their duty to monitor their local government as well as becoming active in one or more of the great organizations we have in our community. Businesses, Residents and Government working together for Overland's future. A pipe dream? Perhaps. But a dream I am willing to work my tail off to support.

I have chosen to fund my efforts, both in improving myself as well as the community at least until 2007. That means that the projects I am working on have my full attention. My ultimate goal is to create a dynamic site, a community newspaper, where everyone can go to see what is happening in our area. Did Ritenour win the football game? What are they building on such and such corner? Who did the Overland Business Association elect to their board this time? They said what at the Council Meeting? etc. All the news that people want. With that would of course come news of what the government is doing (or not doing), features on local groups and residents, letters to the editor, my own editorials, columns for others, and profiles as well as contact information of all the local organizations that are working to make Overland a better place. This is THE project I have in mind, and this is the only ambition I have at the moment.

So, for those who would question my motives, my methods, or my identity, etc, now you know. If you have questions in the future you can always reach me at overlandsailor@aol.com or you could just come up to me and say hi at the next local gathering.

The Mayor's recordings

The Mayor has another interesting item up on her website here. This time is it the vote on the General Revenue Budget at the August 14th 2006 Council Meeting. I am not sure what she sees wrong with this. 4 Councilman voted against passage of the EXACT SAME GENERAL REVENUE BUDGET that they voted against before. If the Mayor wants to try to get this Budget passed, she is going to have to accept the fact that negotiation and compromise are the only tools that can fix it. Perhaps the Mayor did not notice, but I noticed the HUGE cheer from the crowd then the Budget failed to pass. The public is obviously against this budget as well.

The Mayor's site goes on with the following:

It is important to note WARD 3 did not and has not received full representation on these important community concerns and budget votes. Ward 3 residents, as well as the residents of Overland as a whole have been denied the full and fair representation within their own local government which is their most basic right as citizens. Repeated votes have been taken to restore full representation to Ward 3, however on each and every occasion the appointees have been voted down repeatedly and consistently BY THE SAME FOUR INDIVIDUALS. (source)

What the Mayor fails to point our here is that she made no effort to educate our Council Members on Mr Blonden. She provided no information, he has not met anyone, and no one has any idea who he is. If I was on the Council and faced with a complete unknown like this I would vote no as well.

The Mayor also makes the point that this person has been voted down "repeatedly and consistently BY THE SAME FOUR INDIVIDUALS". Is that really a surprise when the Mayor as proposed the same person for appointment and provided no information or contact with him for the Council Members every time as well? What is wrong with this guy that you feel the need to hide him Mayor Purzner? Is he not able to speak for himself to the Council?

The Mayor said: "It is important to note WARD 3 did not and has not received full representation on these important community concerns and budget votes". That is true. However, at least 4 residents of Ward 3 submitted applications at the Mayor's request to fill the vacant seat in Ward 3. The Mayor has said repeatedly and consistently that she would not appoint any of them. What is wrong with these residents Mayor Purzner?

There is one more that is worth noting:

You can be assured we are working hard every day to stop their desires and intentions TO FUTHER "RE-ALLOCATE" EVEN MORE of our hard earned tax dollars for their pet projects, their special interests and the like....

What I find most interesting about this is that the Mayor is attempting to "Re-Allocate" funds in this budget she is promoting. There is no money to replace 4 police officers, 1 dispatcher and 2 public works employees. She is 'RE-ALLOCATING" that money to fund City run trash service that she will not, or cannot provide any hard information on.

1. Is it really going to be as cheap as they say? (How can we know when they say they have not talked with any trash companies or received any bids?)
2. Is the cost in the Budget for a FULL Fiscal Year?
3. Does it include year round yard waste pickup?
4. Does it include year round recycling pickup?
5. Will it be unlimited trash pickup?
6. Will it include large item special pickups?

How can anyone feel comfortable supporting a measure to keep our Police and City under staffed without any idea what the service they trade those people for will amount to?

Call Councilman May, Councilman O'Connell, Councilman Corcoran, and Councilman Schneider and let them know how much you appreciate them for standing up for the law and standing up against a budget full of unknowns.

The "Owensby Memo"

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

(click the image to view the document)

The first claim I find interesting is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Eliminated the City Calendar"

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

"The new balanced budget...."

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

"The Mayor has kept her word to the people"

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

"bringing back free trash pickup for the residents"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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