Overland Politics in Print

Well, all the turmoil and difficulties associated with Overland politics lately has been difficult on our wonderful City. This will not last forever but while it does there would seem to be one clear winner in it all. That would be the Localite Shopper Newspaper. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the Localite or it's management (outside of wishing they covered more local news in more detail). If I was in their position, I would gladly take the extra advertising revenues resulting from all that is going on. I am just glad to be able to point to one positive result from all this. The November 2006 Localite is no exception.

The first ad you come across is the one from Councilman Knode. There he perpetuates the fallacy that signing the recall petition could somehow lead to identity theft. How that is possible when the only information that is needed on the petition is the same info found in the Telephone Company produced White pages is beyond me. However, I have ceased trying to understand Councilman Knode's "logic".

Councilman Knode goes on to tell us The recall is unjustified, and "if making mistakes calls for a recall then we are all guilty of a recall". That sentence does not make sense, but I am going to assume that he meant we could all be subject to a recall. Well Mr. Knode, if those mistakes involve violating the law, as the Mayor's have (and if we were elected officials of course), then yes, we could be subject to a recall as well. Many of us were willing to let those first mistakes go. However, when the Mayor chose to file an unnecessary appeal instead of learning from her mistakes (not to mention continue to ignore laws and statutes resulting in more legal hassles), it became clear that recall is the only course of action left.

Councilman Knode also points out that if successful, the recall would require that we spend $15,000.00 - $20,000.00 dollars on the election. I believe that would be if there was a special election for a recall. If it is done during another regularly scheduled election it would likely be significantly cheaper. However, considering the legal costs the City has already had to pay in the various cases that have resulted from the Mayor's actions, and the costs of the cases that are yet to be heard, $15,000.00 - $20,000.00 dollars sounds like a bargain to many residents.

Councilman Knode goes on to talk about the Council Workshop meeting of October 16th (no mention of the Workshop meetings scheduled for the 24th and the 30th which were apparently canceled). He states among other things that the 2006/2007 budget proposal "had enough money for the trash service to be reinstated to the residents." What I find interesting is that no one is telling us what that service would actually be. The Budget has $616,000.00 for trash service. Currently the trash service is costing the residents about 1.3 million dollars. Does anyone really believe that this $616,000.00 will actually pay for the same services we enjoy today without residents having to continue to pay a portion (perhaps $9.65 a month)?

I would like to issue a challenge to Councilman Knode. GIVE US THE DETAILS. Explain to us how $616,000.00 will fund the trash service, and what that service will specifically be, and how we will continue to fund it in the coming years. If you really believe this service is good for the residents, why is it you keep the proposal and all specific information a secret? Prove to us we will get what we expect from "Free" trash service by explaining the specifics.

As the Chairman of the Refuse Committee you can call for a meeting of that committee to discuss these issues. Why have you not done that? I challenge you Councilman Knode. I challenge you to hold a Refuse Committee Meeting, that is announced to the public a week in advance. I challenge you to share with us at that meeting what we can expect this "Free" City trash service to specifically be, and how it will be paid for long term. Are you willing to share the facts and figures with the residents you claim this service is for? Or are you going to stick to your misleading sound bites sir?

Next was an huge ad from The Citizens of Overland for Good Government (C.O.G.G.). In it, they point out the mailer sent out called "Overland Residents Alert" ,which was about possible identity theft issues in Overland, was done by people who were unwilling to stand behind their words with their name.

Though I support the recall effort (as the Mayor has given us no other choice in my opinion) I do find one section of C.O.O.G.s ad amusing:

"If this "group" was legitimate and cared about the public interest, they would be honest and open about who they are and what they are doing as C.O.G.G. has been from the start"

C.O.G.G. researched and properly filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission. They named officers, and C.O.G.G.s President has been seen several times on the local news putting his name and face behind their message. That is a lot more than we can say for those behind that "Overland Resident Alert", the apparently non-existent PrimeWATCH Publications or even the Overland Recovery Team's (ORT) flyers.

However, C.O.G.G. is still a ways from being "open". To the best of my knowledge they have yet to hold a meeting that was open to the public. They want the support of the residents, but they have yet to involve them. So it seems a bit humorous to me that C.O.G.G. is now saying another organization should be "open". Members of C.O.G.G. have been saying for some time that a open public meeting will be coming soon, however they have yet to find a space to hold such a meeting. I guess we will just have to wait and see on that one.

Later in the add it says "C.O.G.G. is open to citizens of all ages and circumstances who want good government and support the recall of Mayor Purzner. Hopefully, this group will be a public organization from this point forward. One question though. How does the Citizens of Overland for Good Government feel about people who want Good Government, and want to help with that cause, but do not support the recall? For example, I have met people who do not support the recall because they think recalls are wrong in general. What about those potential members? I imagine they would not have much of an issue with this, but the wording of the ad simply begs the question.

Next we find an ad from Councilman May. In it, he points out that "some wonderful things have emerged from the present chaos at City Hall". I agree. If one thing can be said for the current administration it is the way the Mayor's actions have mobilized so many residents and gotten people interested in City Government and paying attention to what is going on. There are ten times the number of people going to City Council Meetings than were doing so in the past. That can serve this City well in the future.

He went on to say "You the residents, if you get and stay involved, can steer Overland in whatever direction you want and no one will be able to stop you". I agree. With some exceptions, that is what a representative Government is supposed to be about. However, the key in this statement is that people have to STAY involved. At some point, the current political turmoil will be resolved. I hope, that people will stay involved, stay organized and stay informed. If people do not remain motivated to stay vigilant, simply because things return to normal, then it will become easy for City Hall to go wrong again.

Then we come to the "Overland Our Town Updates" section. We have covered almost all of this before. The one key bit of misinformation would be the Mayor's reference to the Executive Session Scheduled to be held in the middle of a public meeting.

First, let's try to understand what that would mean. The Public Council meeting would have had to stop, and either all of the people in attendance would have had to leave the room, or the Council, Mayor and other involved parties would have had to leave. This is because Executive sessions are private meetings (generally to discuss real estate transactions, litigation issues, or personnel matters). Until recently, Executive Sessions were scheduled to happen AFTER the public City Council Meetings. When that meeting was done, those who had to leave would have to come back are resume the Public meeting. This makes no sense on any level.

The Councilmen who opposed that Executive Session did not oppose the meeting itself, they opposed when it was scheduled. Prior to that meeting, the City Council always held Executive sessions after the public Council meeting. If they had scheduled it that way, I am sure the Executive Session would have happened without issue. Instead, it looks like the Mayor wanted to inconvenience the public in attendance. In the end, it only ended up inconveniencing the developers. At the last Council Meeting the Mayor did the same thing. However, she canceled the Executive session herself, saying it was no longer necessary.

I would like to issue a challenge to Mayor Purzner. The challenge is to answer two simple questions. Why does she now insist on holding private Executive Session Meetings in the middle of the Public City Council Meeting, instead of after that Council meeting as we have always done? Why would you want to disrupt the City Council meeting and inconvenience the residents in attendance in this way?

In the last paragraph the Mayor asked that future Council meetings be "constructive, adhere to the facts and comply with state laws..." It is nice to see the Mayor actively promoting the concept of complying with State Laws rather than actively violating them (Sunshine Law, Chapter 77 of Missouri Revised Statutes (3rd class cities), etc). I will also be looking forward to seeing the Mayor and her supporting Council members start sticking to the "facts". It would be a pleasant change.

Then we find another Ad. This one, paid for by former Mayor Dody. In his ad he states "We need you to sign the petition to help restore Good Government to Overland." I agree, Mayor Purzner has shown us time and time again that recall is the only option left.

However, this entire situation is an example of what can happen if you do not actively seek to engage the electorate when making major changes. We did not engage the residents through Town Hall meetings and the like when the City found it necessary to end City paid trash service. If we had, I believe most people would have been OK with it, knowing that the alternative would have been to cut other City services and manpower, like the 2 police officers, 2 public works employees and 1 dispatcher that are not funded in the 2006/2007 budget proposal. I hope our elected officials, and those who would wish to become our elected officials learn this lesson well.

Then we find a ad paid for by "R.A. Throndike" Well, I can't seem to find a single R.A. "Throndike" anywhere. I could not find a single "Throndike" anywhere either (without initials). Assuming there was a typo I checked for "Thorndike". I found 12 "Thorndikes" in Missouri. However, none of them had names to match the initials. So, who is "R.A. Throndike", apparently another fantasy person.

First this letter claims that snow and ice removal is in the 2006/2007 General Fund Budget and because it has not been approved, we are all in danger. Well, it was also in the 2005/2006 budget which is what we are currently operating under now, per State Law (until the new budget is passed) so this, like so many other "dangers" proposed by the Mayor's supporters, is imaginary.

What I find interesting is that in the last Council Meeting, Councilman Knode insisted on changing the minutes of the Oct. 16th workshop meeting to add a comment by Roland Lettner where he supposedly said that he could not guarantee adequate snow removal if the General Fund Budget was not passed. Mr. Lettner was not there to speak to this. However, I was at that workshop meeting and I heard Mr. Lettner say that without the 2 public works employees that the General Fund Budget does not allow the replacement of he could not guarantee adequate snow removal. I wonder why Councilman Knode chose to change those minutes at a Council meeting when the person whose comments he wanted to change / add was not there to clarify the issue for himself?

This phantom person then says that the issue over "free" trash is over paying for trash or hiring "more" police. First, the issue is about funding the replacement of police officers. 2 vacant positions are not funded for hiring replacements in the current General Budget proposal. When the average City of our size, in our area has 50 or so officers, and the Mayor and her supporting Council members want to reduce our force to 43, we should all be concerned. This ad also neglects to point out that none of the supporters of the trash service will tell us the specifics. I imagine they are concerned that when residents discover they will still have to mandatorily pay nearly $30.00 a quarter, they will not think that is "Free".

This ad says "they turned down the dog catcher". At the Workshop meeting of 16th, Councilman May expressed support for the Animal Control Officer (why do the Mayor's supporters insist on calling this position a "dog catcher"?), and so did the entire Council. Then it goes on to say they turned down the cost of living increase for most employees and that the new budget would not cut the Chief's or the City Clerk's Salary. Just one question. Most of that was part of the proposed changes that were presented for the first time at the Workshop meeting of October 16th. Since that meeting, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no vote on the General Fund Budget by the Council. So when exactly were these things turned down?

This ad then talks about the Wild Acres property. Our mystery writer says "The Taxpayers will have to pay over 10,000.00 a month without being able to use these buildings". Interesting, since one of those buildings is now an actively used Police substation and Community Policing office, and the gym is rented by residents and non residents alike nearly every weekend. Is that what they mean by not being able to use them?

When it comes to the other buildings, the 2006/2007 Capital Improvements Budget was passed with a line item of $45,000.00 to be spent on those buildings. How much of that has been authorized to be spent by the Mayor since? It appears to be zero (though that is likely to change soon due to issues recently discovered with the heating system at the main building). How can we move forward towards making these properties work for Overland when the Mayor refuses to authorize basic maintenance to prevent further damage and will not meet with The Friends of Wild Acres, a resident group of over 100 members, that has been working on ideas for this facility?

Then this person says C.O.G.G. has gotten in trouble with the Missouri Ethics Commission "because of their inability to follow the rules". No proof of course. There is no proof because there has been no investigation of C.O.G.G. by the Missouri Ethics Commission...ever. Furthermore, C.O.G.G. is the only organization in Overland whose publications properly state who paid for them, as well as who the treasurer is.

It would appear that this claim is false, and if so should allow C.O.G.G. to seek the name and contact information for whomever actually paid for that ad through subpoena if necessary, as this ad could easily become the subject of a libel suit.

He goes on to ask if C.O.G.G. told residents considering signing the document that the issue would likely go to court. How many people in town do not realize that this petition will likely be challenged in court? And who will challenge it? It will be Mayor Purzner and her supporters. So if it goes to Court, they are equally to blame. Add to that, the fact that if Mayor Purzner would have simply operated within the law in her job as Mayor there would be no recall effort and you can see who is really to blame for any costs associated with this.

I cannot speak for everyone, however, when I have worked on gathering signatures I make sure to point out to people that all this petition effort does, should it be successful, is get a recall election on the ballot to allow the residents of Overland to determine if the Mayor should remain in office. I have explained that there will likely be a court battle over the petition as the Mayor has the right to challenge it, and once that court case is successful, we will see a recall election. It could be a special election or it could be added to the ballot of another election. That will be up to the judge and state election officials.

Last, the person who used the apparently non-existent name of "R.A. Throndike" goes on to say that if you feel C.O.G.G. is dishonest, and might have forged your name, you should contact the election board and let them know. This is ridiculous. First, 2/3rds of the voters in April 2006 voted against Mayor Purzner, and signatures from only 1/4 of the registered voters are needed for the a recall petition to be successful and get a recall election. Why bother with forgery or any other dishonest tactics (like posting ads or mailing letters under false names) when there are so many possible signatures out there. When I walked for signatures about 7 out of 10 people I spoke to wanted to sign. Of those that did not, I didn't argue with them, I wished them a great day and moved on. There is no need for under-handed and/or heavy-handed tactics when there are so many residents who want to sign (some even running out of their homes to meet us on the sidewalks).

So, with all the mud-slinging and misinformation we have going on, what do we have to show for it? We have the assurance, that as long as this gamesmanship continues, the Localite Shopper will be well funded and will safely remain a service to our community (unless the RA Throndike ad causes them problems). At least we residents get something out of all this.

To read comments related to this specific Article
please visit this page at the Overland Speaks Out forum site.
Now anyone can post comments there,
be they registered members or not.
Just hit the "Add Reply" button to post your comments.

Identify Theft is fraud, so is the "Overland Alert"

In Friday's Post dispatch Norm Parish had an article about the latest letter to hit Overland Residents Mailboxes. You can read that article here.

The Overland Police Department, as well as the Postal Inspectors, have received complaints about this letter. Sources say that both are investigating.

The return address on this letter states that it came from a company called "PrimeWATCH Publications". This company does not exist in Missouri according to a search of the Secretary of State's records. Furthermore, we have been told that the P.O. Box number does not exist in that zip code.

So, who sent this letter? That is still a mystery. Residents quickly recognized the postal permit number as it has appeared on numerous mailings supporting Mayor Purzner and others on the Council, both before and after the election. When it was discovered that this mailing was sent by Economical Mailing Services at 10426 Lackland in Overland I contacted them.

I spoke to Doug Carr. He stated that the bulk rate permit number was his, and that he has done numerous mailings for political candidates, as well as mailings for both sides of the same races throughout the area in the past. Mr. Carr stated that this particular mailing was subcontracted to him by another company, and that he did not know who the originator might have been.

When asked, he said his lawyer advised not to reveal who his client was without a subpoena to avoid potential privacy issues and lawsuits. He said that he had no political interest in Overland, and is just a small business person who makes his living doing mailings for others.

"I do a lot of wholesale mailings, where another company subcontracts my services because I'm local." Stated Mr. Carr. He explained that he often only knows who the company is that hired him, not the customer who hired that company.

Mr. Carr also explained to me that there is no industry standard when it comes to confirming return addresses, though after this incident he may change that in his own business.

Mr. Carr said it is great to see so many people involved in their local government and thinks this could lead to more people voting in future elections.

Who is the source of this mailing? Well, we will have to wait and see if the Overland Police Department's, the Postal Inspector's or various local journalist's investigations develop that information.

A discussion with a postal employee suggested that having a fraudulent company name, and/or an invalid P.O. Box on mail could possibly constitute mail fraud and recommended that the Postal Inspectors be contacted. The Postal Inspectors office had not returned my call at the time of this writing.

If you would like to contact the Postal Inspectors with your concerns they can be reached at:

POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE

1106 WALNUT ST

SAINT LOUIS MO 63199-2201

Phone : 314-539-9300 - option 4 (to speak to a representative)

Fax : 314-539-9306
Online here

There may be legal issues here, but the real issue for me is the ethical issue. This letter is dishonest at best.

The letter is designed to appear as an alert to the residents. Including the Overland Police Department name and number makes it appear to have official support. According to the Post-Dispatch article listed above:

"We believe the flier is misleading," [Chief] Herron said. "Some people might believe that the Overland Police Department put it out, and we did not. We don't know of any identity theft or any other illegal activity connected with this recall. As far as we know, this recall is a legitimate exercise in citizens' rights."

The letter claims that residents should be wary of signing a petition because they could become victims of identity theft. When you consider the facts, this claim falls flat.

If you own your home, your name and address are public information. If you have a listed phone number, your name and address are public information, if you are a register voter your name and address are public information. If you have ever subscribed to a magazine, your information is bought and sold by marking companies regularly. Why would a dishonest person, seeking to commit identity theft, let all of their potential victims see their face and go though the work of going door to door (criminals tend to be criminals because they are lazy), when they can simply get the registered voters list from the Election Board, or the home owners list available from a ton of sources, etc.

Of course the Registered Voter lists, the Homeowners lists and others are useless to them. None of them contain social security numbers, birth dates, bank account numbers and other personal information which are key information needed for identity theft. The Recall petition does not require this information either.

The Recall Petition requires that you sign your name, write your address, and print your name. All of which they already have on the Register Voter's list that brought them to your front door to seek your signature.

The real risk most homeowners take when it comes to identity theft is in what they throw away. Old bills, bank statements, even credit card offers can all be taken from your trash and potentially used against you. To protect against this, we need to destroy those documents before throwing them away. The easiest solution to the problem is a "cross cut" shredder.

The claims of this letter are ridiculous. I believe the writer(s) knew this, and that is why they did not attach their real name(s) or contact information to it. Their choice hide their identity speaks volumes about the credibility of these mystery writers.

To read comments related to this specific Article
please visit this page at the Overland Speaks Out forum site.
Now anyone can post comments there,
be they registered members or not.
Just hit the "Add Reply" button to post your comments.

Council Workshop Meeting 10/16/2006

Everyone has "Technical difficulties" from time to time. This site is no exception. Sorry for the delay on this article, I had problems getting anything posted on here for a few days. Hopefully that is now resolved.

I am not a trained sport commentator so I don't think I am qualified to cover the various conflicts that erupted at the Workshop meeting on October 16th. Tempers flared, blood boiled, and it actually looked like it might come to blows in a few cases. Neither side was innocent in all of that. However, I will leave the "blow by blow" to others.

When I arrived at the meeting the music was coming through the divider from the exercise class next door. Comically I wondered if the meeting would be held to the beat, "Music to politic by". The music seemed to die down as the meeting got underway. The entire Council was present with the exception of Councilman Corcoran.

There were approximately 40 residents in attendance when the meeting started. I didn't notice what the room's capacity was but it appeared to me to be about the same as the Council Chambers (if not less). Since the election, we have had great turnouts at the regularly scheduled Council Meetings. However, Committee Meetings, Special Council Meetings, etc, have all been well within the limits of the Council Chamber capacity. I would have thought this meeting, being a "Workshop" could have been scheduled in the Chambers based on past attendance of other "special" meetings and the like. My guess is that the Mayor and others decided to play it safe due to the injunction from the Judge hearing the Sunshine Law violation case.

The meeting started with a proposal presented by Councilman Knode. It was a compromise effort. At one point Councilman Knode said "We are here to compromise, we are here to negotiate, this is a starting point". It was a real compromise effort on some of the issues and an excellent starting point. The compromise changes included:

• The elimination of the Salary cut to the Chief of Police
• The elimination of the Salary cut to the City Clerk
• The elimination of the Procurement Officer position
• Adding the 3% Cost of Living (COLA) increase to Police Sergeants

This was funded by the elimination of the Procurement Officer position as well as taking half of the costs budgeted for a City Administrator position as it is highly unlikely that position would be filled before December (apparently we have not been interviewing for this position since the April election (if someone knows otherwise, please let me know)).

Since the Budget was originally voted down in July, there has been no meetings that addressed the differences the Council had in General Revenue Budget. A real effort was made to compromise and work together to work out issues with the Capital Improvements budget back in August. As a result the Capital Improvements Budget passed unanimously, while the General Revenue Budget failed. This looked to me like a real effort was finally being made to address part of the General Revenue Budget in the same way.

Councilman May asked that they attempt to take some "baby steps" and figure out the areas they can all agree on so that they could then focus on the differences. One of those areas was the Health and Rabies officer position. The Budget proposal includes the hiring of a Health and Rabies officer for Overland. All of the Council seemed to agree with this provision.

The original proposal was to severely cut the salaries of the Chief of Police and the City Clerk. The new proposal eliminates those cuts, but freezes their salaries this year. Councilman O'Connell raised an issue with this. He felt that they did not get a pay increase last year, so they should get one this year.

Councilman O'Connell originally suggested several meetings back that a 3% pay increase was not enough since the employees did not receive a pay raise last year. He wanted to see a 6% increase for the employees. At this meeting he offered to compromise to 4%, and wanted that to apply to all employees, supervisors or otherwise, as well as the Chief of Police and the City Clerk.

I don't think this is going far enough to meet in the middle. Having been a union member for years I can understand where Mr. O'Connell is coming from, but I don't think this is reasonable in comparison to the compromise presented. The compromise was a reasonable effort to address the pay issues of the General Revenue Budget. No one gets a pay cut, the useless procurement officer position is removed, and those hard working Sergeants at the Overland PD get the same COLA increase as the rest of the City employees.

The "white shirts" at the police department, as well as the department heads at City Hall do not get this raise. Though I think we all agree that these people are hard working professionals who do an excellent job for Overland, we do have to face the fact that the City cannot move forward and include these pay raises this year.

I worked in a Union job for 4 years, and received one pay raise. I worked in another job for 5 years and received 2 pay raises, and another for 3 gave me no pay raise. Outside of specific contract provisions (like the first 4-5 years of most union contracts, or the step raise programs in many government jobs) I don't know of any job that sees a pay raise every year. It is true that our cost of living tends to go up annually, but so does the cost of operation for cities and companies alike. There are only so many dollars to go around and I think most of us can agree that while they are not overpaid, our supervisory personnel and department heads are well paid.

Agreeing to limit the pay raise to non-supervisory personnel with the exception of the Sergeants on the Police force was a reasonable compromise effort. The key to compromise is that you have to be willing to give alittle to get alittle. The budget cannot be passed unless both sides make this attempt equally.

There is another side to this issue. When people took these various positions, they were told they would be receiving a 2 1/2% pay raise annually, and COLA increased as needed. Last year those step raises were frozen due to budget concerns, now it is happening again this year. When employers start taking away things that were promised to employees, good employees tend to start looking elsewhere for work.

However, when there are differences between elected officials on something like the budget, the only way to move forward is to compromise. In this case, we are effectively asking the leadership at the Police Department and City Hall to "take one for the team". This time around, it seems reasonable, but if this becomes the norm we are going to end up losing our best and brightest.

The compromise proposal appeared to be a reasonable effort to resolve a good portion of issues both sides have with the budget proposal. If they could have all agreed with this proposal they could have focused on the 2 remaining issues.

The remaining issues are the lack of funding to replace 2 police officers, 2 public works employees and 1 dispatcher, as well as the funding for unspecified "free trash" service.

The Mayor suggested that we do not need these positions filled, because the city has less population than years before (based on the 2000 census numbers I would imagine). The acting Public Works Director made an excellent point. He said "though we have a smaller population we have no fewer miles of roads". He expressed concern that with the reduced man power, and that the City might not be able to properly handle snow removal.

His argument can also apply to the Police Department. Four fewer people living on a block does not mean that it needs to be patrolled any less by the police department (in fact, vacant properties tend to attract crime). We may have fewer residents, but we have no fewer miles of neighborhoods that need to be patrolled.

The Mayor stated at the meeting that our manning table for the police department is in line with our "new" population when compared to surrounding municipalities. As always, the specific municipalities are not mentioned.

So, how many police officers do similar sized municipalities have?

Overland = 16,838 residents (7,012 households) - 45 Officers, 13 Civilians

Bridgeton = 18,445 residents (6,251 households) - 57 Officers, 17 Civilians
Creve Coeur = 16,500 residents (6,988 households) - 50 Officers, 11 Civilians

I am not sure where the Mayor gets her information. Most of the surrounding communities are either significantly smaller or larger than Overland. The above communities are the closest to our size within our area of St. Louis County and both have more officers. One City, which is only 60% of our size has more officers as well.

Berkley = 10,063 residents (3,600 households) - 47 Officers, 11 Civilians

The current proposal only funds 43 officers. When we hear about more and more types of crime, security concerns, etc, I would think we would want a larger police presence on the street, not a smaller one. A few years ago we had a budget for 47 Officers. The previous administration reduced this to 45 due to budget concerns. Now this administration wants to reduce it to 43. We cannot afford to have a lower police presence on the street than surrounding communities. Less cops on the streets makes Overland more attractive to criminals (as the manning differences means that surrounding communities have 2-3 more cars on the road per shift). More crime means lower property values, more residents moving elsewhere, which leads to more vacant property, more budget short falls etc.

Councilman Knode at one point said to Councilman O'Connell, "Why don't you take everything from the residents and give it all to the Police Department".

This appears to be a clear misunderstanding of the dynamics here. The Police Department is a service to the residents. Reducing the Police department is reducing services to the residents. It is a dangerous move, that is not justified by returning a portion of City paid trash service to the residents (and letting the residents pay for the majority of it).

The City has the funding for these positions, but that funding is budgeted for "free" trash collection. They budgeted $616,000.00 for a trash service that we are currently paying $1,300,000.00 ,or so, for as residents. However, the Mayor and her supporting Council members claim they have not met with any trash companies to discuss the costs of various services. They claim that they can somehow get us trash services we need for less than half of what we are currently paying and less than we were paying before the City started having the residents pay for it directly. How it this possible? They have no answer for us. What services does this include? They have no answer for us.

The Trash Committee has not met (at least no meetings were announced that I am aware of) to consider options, costs, etc. According to the Mayor at several Council meetings the City has received no bids (though she didn't say anything about proposals).

How can we blindly budget for something without any information? How can we risk longer response times by the police, delays when residents call 911, and ineffective snow removal for a series of unknowns?

If it comes up for a vote I expect the Council will not approve the Budget at the next Council meeting on Monday, Oct. 23rd, 2006. The Council and the Mayor agreed to have another Workshop meeting on Tuesday October 24th at 6:30pm. Perhaps they will be able to get into the real issues of the budget in that meeting. As a resident, I do not want to trade safety and security for a trash service where I will still have a monthly bill from a trash company that I have to pay. If the Mayor and the Council want us to support this, they have to start getting serious and specifically identifying what this "free" service will include, and what residents will still have to pay.

I would like to ask that the Trash Committee start meeting on this issue so that the facts can finally be presented to the residents of Overland. Most of the residents cannot support such an expensive question mark. The residents willing to do so are doing this because they really hate the idea of having a monthly bill they did not have before. They deserve to see the details because they will not be losing that bill with the new "free" trash. They will get a reduction in that bill, but they will still have a bill.

The Mayor and some on the Council will say I am wrong on this, but they will not provide the facts, figures and proposals they have (but claim they do not). If the politicians want to prove me wrong on this they need to start holding Trash Committee Meetings and investigating the real costs and options for Trash Service. One thing is certain, outside of semantics, the City will not get free trash service back again, ever. Even the proponents, plans require that we all dig in our pockets and pay every quarter. Is a less than 50% reduction in our bills for trash service worth the safety and security issues that these staff reductions will create?

That is a decision the voters will have to make. We deserve the full story and the Facts, but we are not getting them. Why will Councilmen Knode, Sellers, and Owensby, as well as Mayor Purzner not tell us any specifics about their proposed trash service. Does anyone really think that blindly trusting any politicians is a smart move?

To read comments related to this specific Article

please visit this page at the Overland Speaks Out forum site.

Now anyone can post comments there,

be they registered members or not.
Just hit the "Add Reply" button to post your comments.

Recall Petition Effort Underway

The Citizens of Overland for Good Government (C.O.G.G.) started their Recall Petition effort this weekend. There has been some confusion about this for a few residents so I would like to clear the air a bit.

This petition cannot Recall Mayor Ann Purzner by itself.
The petition only seeks to hold a Recall Election,
where all the registered voters of Overland,
whether they signed this petition or not,
have the opportunity to vote to
support or oppose Recalling the Mayor.

The petition, once successfully completed and certified, simply allows the residents to vote on this issue. It will be up to the majority of Overland voters whether the Mayor is eventually recalled or not. Also, you have to be a registered voter to sign the petition. That means you have to be on the Election Board's registration rolls. If you are not on the Board's list, you can't sign. This is simply one of the rules that have to be followed for the petition to be certified.

However, if you find you are not on the list of registered voters and you are sure you should be, contact the St. Louis County Board of Elections at: (314) 615-1800. It would not be the first time someone fell off the registered voter rolls in error. You probably won't be able to sign the petition, but hopefully you can resolve it so that you'll be able to vote in November, and eventually vote in a Recall election should the petition effort be successful.

As we got closer to being able to start working on this effort, I had concerns. I do believe that the actions of the Mayor have left us with no other option but to seek a recall, and I wanted to work on it personally. However, I was not sure if I was going to participate. I was concerned that participation would call my non-partisan status into question, and could cause others to see me as biased. I am not, but as we all know, perception is more important than reality these days.

However, thanks to Councilman Knode's email to me, I realized that no matter what you do, if you do not agree with the Mayor or her supporting Council members 100% it seems you will be seen by them and their supporters as biased and part of an imaginary conspiracy. Since they made it clear that no matter what efforts I make to be fair, I will apparently be painted as a partisan by them I feel free to work on this effort. They have already decided that my analysis is biased (though they refuse to challenge any of it with specifics), so I really had nothing to lose.

We did not go to people's doors to "sell" the recall. We explained it was a petition seeking a recall election, asked if the listed registered voters were home and if they were interested in signing it. If someone wanted more information on the issues we suggested they look into it futher and if they decided later that they wanted to sign later they could always contact COGG at: (314) 429-4480. We did not debate those who opposed the effort, we just asked if all the registered voters in their home felt the same and if so we marked our list so that it would not be visited again (which eliminates a possible annoyance for them).

I walked Saturday and Sunday. My partners and I were a bit surprised by how few people were home. It seems a lot of people have things to do on the weekend (I suspect we will get to speak to more people during the week). We didn't get to talk to a lot of residents. However, the reaction of those we did talk to was pretty telling.

They say that when you do any sort of effort that requires knocking doors, it takes a few houses to get comfortable. However, we had no issue at the very first house we came to on Saturday. In fact, we barely set foot on the sidewalk and the residents there came running out, asking if we had the petition to recall the Mayor and where do they sign. After verifying that one of the residents was on the registered voter rolls, she was able to sign, and we suggested to her spouse that he contact the Election Board to inquire about his registration status because he was confident he was a registered voter (but was not on the list). Before we left the residents there waved and told their neighbors we were coming, then sent us on our way with a lot of encouragement. What a great way to start.

As we went on we found that the majority or residents we talked to had similar feelings. On Saturday we knocked approximately 200 doors, and were able to talk to 34 residents. Of those 34 we met, 27 signed the petition. One resident who did not want to sign said she wanted to look into the issue more before deciding. The 6 refusals we had were pretty interesting as well. 2 of those who did not want to sign were pleasant but had interesting reasons. One said he was selling his house and was not sure he should sign, the other was concerned about retaliation. Of the other four, 2 were pleasant saying they voted for the Mayor, and did not want to recall her. The last 2 where somewhat angry in their opposition, though not abusive in any way.

So, how did we do Saturday? Of the residents we were able to talk too, 79% or so signed the petition. Less than roughly 1% felt they did not have enough information to decide. Approximately 17% choose not to sign, with 2/3rds of those folks were pleasant and even friendly in their opposition.

Sunday was similar for us. We only found 26 people at home. Of those, 19 signed our petition while 7 chose not too. Sunday was a better day for us opposition wise as everyone was friendly, they simply didn't agree. So, how did Sunday break down for us? 73% signed the petition. 26% chose not to, and 100% of those opposed were friendly about it.

Out of dozens of teams of resident volunteers, our team collected 46 signatures from 61 residents we were able to talk to in a total of 6 hours work. That is about a 75% signing rate in Ward 1, from what I've experienced so far. Most other teams said they had similar experiences.

The process was very interesting. I'm pleased with the way most of those who opposed the effort were friendly about it. My limited experience so far seems to suggest that most Overland Residents, whether they support or oppose a Recall effort, recognize this is not personal. I do not have issues with the Mayor or her supporting Council members personally. I have had pleasant conversations with several Council members whose political views I oppose. Just because I don't support their politics, doesn't mean I can't laugh with them about the antics of children and the like. It was nice to see that most others seem to separate the political and the personal as well.

From what I heard from other teams, most seemed to have had similar experiences. If the majority of the teams had 3 out of 4 registered voters sign the petition as well, then I imagine we not only will have the 2500 signatures required, but will likely have more registered voters sign the petition than actually voted in the Mayoral election. That, would be a statement in itself.

To read comments related to this specific Article
please visit this page at the Overland Speaks Out forum site.
Now anyone can post comments there,
be they registered members or not.

You just have to click the "Add Reply"
button At the top of the page.

Last Day to Register to Vote

I am not a huge fan of posting multiple articles in the same day under this current Blogger format, however this subject in important. Regardless of which "side" you feel you belong to in politics, this information is useful for you.

Today is the LAST DAY

you can register to vote

and be allowed to participate

in the November Election!

If you want your voice to be heard at the polls in November, and you have not registered to vote, you need to do so Today. There are serious issues coming in Missouri as well as America. For an idea of what they are you can read the Secretary of State's Ballot info , or the St. Louis County Board of Elections Ballot Info. You can't have a say on these issues if you are not a registered voter.

To register to vote at this point you should do so in person to ensure it is handled in time, and the sooner the better. To learn who can register and where you can go to do so, visit the St. Louis County Board of Elections Voter Information Page on Registration, found here. At this late date, your best bet would likely be to go to:

Saint. Louis County

Board of Election's Office

12 Sunnen Dr.,

St. Louis Mo, 63143 (map).

You can still get the forms for various places (including online here), and mail them in along with a photo copy of your driver's licence or other State I.D.. As long as it is post marked today or earlier it should be accepted. However, a friendly representative at the Election Board advised that at this late date it would be best if people handled it in person at their office.

Finally, for registered voters who identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans (unfortunately, Independents like myself are out of luck) there is still a need for election judges and volunteers at many polling places. To learn more about becoming an election judge visit this page at the St. Louis County Election Board website. Also, The Secretary of State has a new initiative to try to get more poll workers / volunteers. If you would like to assist with the election process, be sure to check out "It's Your Turn" at the Secretary of State's website.

Hope to see you all at the polls!

To read comments related to this specific Article

please visit this page at the Overland Speaks Out forum site.

If you would like to post a comment you will need

to be a registered user of Overland Speaks Out.

Insurance Committee Meeting of 10/10/2006

I attended the Insurance Committee Meeting on Tuesday. For those who do not know, the Insurance Committee consists of:

• Chairman: Councilman O'Connell (Ward 2)
• Member: Councilman May (Ward 1)
• Member: Councilman Owensby (Ward 3)
• Member: Councilman Schneider (Ward 4)

The subject of the meeting was the upcoming annual renewal of the City Employee Benefits Package (January 1st 2007). Also in attendance were several representatives of the Insurance Brokerage that has been handling this for the City, as well as our City Clerk Linda Downs and Councilman Sellers. I was the only resident in attendance.

As an interesting side note I just wanted to say that I had a very pleasant conversation with Councilman Sellers prior to the start of the meeting. He discussed his granddaughter, I discussed my daughter. It's always amazing how easy it is for people with small children in their lives to communicate (and at times commiserate) with each other at the drop of a hat.

I would like to start by saying that this meeting went very well. It was what you would expect from a meeting like this. Everyone discussed the issues at hand and there was little, if any, of the "sniping" or turmoil we have come to expect at our Council meetings these days. It was not so much that the Chairman did a great job of maintaining control, as it was that everyone in attendance controlled themselves and focused on the issues at hand. It was a pleasure to watch.

The process was explained by a representative of the Brokerage. It seems that every year the Employee Benefits are renewed. Each year the city meets with the Broker to discuss what has worked and what has not, what they would like to keep and what they would like to change, as well as what they think the future might hold. From that, the Broker works out a submission that is sent to a multitude of insurance companies. The resulting offers from those companies are then presented to the Committee and they decide on which company to go with.

Councilman Owensby asked about going out for competitive bids to which the broker explained that the plan requirements the Insurance Committee works out are submitted to many insurance companies, and the offers that follow are all given to the committee for their review. Ultimately the City decides on which offer best suits both the needs of the employees and the City's budget.

The Brokerage created a survey that was circulated to employees recently. Of the 100 employees, 30 responded to most of the questions. Of those responses, on a scale of 1-5, 80% rated their medical insurance as 3, 4 or 5. Also, over 90% of those who responded rated the other benefits (dental, vision, life insurance, etc) as a 3, 4 or 5. When you consider that often, those who have no issue with something don't bother to answer a survey, these seem to be really good numbers. It appears the employees overall are happy with their benefits as is. One of the Broker's representatives pointed out that these ratings are well above the norm.

Councilman Owensby pointed out that he had talked to a number of employees and they all seemed to like the plan they have now. Chairman O'Connell requested that when they get bids, they look into the possibility of reducing the deductibles. Councilman May said he hasn't heard anything negative about this plan from the employees and that most seem to like it.

While considering options for next year's plan Councilman May asked that they seek companies who provide wellness seminars and the like for the employees. The idea being that with better information, employees might better be able to improve their overall health. The Brokerage pointed out that there are several options to implement such a program. One such option is for the City to print wellness flyers on various subjects that are freely available on the Brokerage's website and distribute them with the employee's paychecks.

It was great to see elected officials working well together, considering various inputs and ideas, and efficiently moving forward. Overall, I left with the impression the Insurance Committee was committed to getting the best services for the employees the City could afford, and the consensus seemed to be that they need to maintain the current level of services, while trying to improve on them where possible.

After the meeting Councilman May talked to me about this site's recent article concerning the Appointment of Mr. Blonden. Councilman May wanted to let me know that though they had no information originally, when considering Mr. Blonden's appointment, they had been given his resume a little over a month ago. Councilman May said he had several concerns about that resume, and as a result, he still could not support Mr. Blonden. I won't get into the issues here, as I see no benefit to airing such things about someone's resume publicly.

However, I wanted to make sure we got the record straight. Originally, when Mr. Blonden was presented to the Council by the Mayor (back in June I believe) for appointment to Ward 3's vacant seat, the Council had no information on Mr. Blonden and as Councilman May pointed out at the time, he could not in good conscience vote for someone he knew nothing about.

Then, somewhere around late August, early September, according to Councilman May the Council received Mr. Blonden's resume. Based on that resume, Councilman May (and possibly several others on the Council as well), could not vote for Mr. Blonden.

What we have here is an impasse. The Mayor does not have a majority of votes on the Council, and as a result, to get something passed would require discussion and compromise. If the Mayor and the Council could simply meet and consider all of the various people who have expressed interest in filling that seat, we'd have a better chance of getting it filled. Remember how well they all worked together and through discussion and compromise worked out a Capital Improvements Budget that was passed unanimously this year? If they were to employ that same willingness to discuss the issue of this appointment, and that same spirit of compromise, I think the Mayor and the Council would have a good chance of filling that seat. However, the Mayor would have to be willing to hold such a meeting. Hopefully, we will see this approach happen soon.

Edited to Add: Due to a recent surge in people abusing the comments option on this site (SPAM, foul language, personal attacks, etc), I have decided to discontinue allowing comments on posts in their current form. A section for this site has been added to the Overland Speaks Out site to allow for future comments while enabling me to enforce the rules I had hoped would be followed voluntarily.

It is unfortunate that we have to take this step, however there seems to be no other option. Anyone interested in reading the comments posted there will be able to see them simply by visiting that section of that forum. To post a comment however, you will have to register for full forum access. Registration is free, and fairly simple (requiring only a verifiable email address), however it does allow me to better police this feature.

The hope is that it will allow both sides to communicate about the issues, while preventing the various issues we have had to deal with recently. Thank you for your understanding. As we move forward here, we learn what works, we learn what doesn't and we adjust appropriately.

To read comments related to this specific Article

please visit this page at the Overland Speaks Out forum site.

If you would like to post a comment you will need

to be a registered user of Overland Speaks Out.

"This can't be expressed any more plainly"

Perhaps not Mayor Purzner,
but it could certainly be expressed
much more accurately.

Now the Mayor has chosen to call into question Councilman Schneider and whether or not he is a good Marine on her website (is there any wonder why so many do not wish this site to be linked to the City of Overland in any way?). I find this both offensive and a bit ironic. Unlike Mayor Ann Purzner, Councilman Schneider has not claimed to have experience, titles, degrees or licenses that he did not earn. To attempt to discredit his service to this country simply because he does not agree with the Mayor's political opinion is beneath contempt.

The current catch phrase of Mayor Purzner, Councilman Knode, Councilman Owensby and others has been to suggest that Councilman May, Councilman O'Connell, Councilman Corcoran, and Councilman Schneider have consistently voted to:

DENY THE RIGHTS OF FULL & FAIR
REPRESENTATION TO ALL OVERLAND RESIDENTS

It is true that these Councilman have voted consistently against the appointment of George Blonden (AKA George Otterman) to the vacant seat in Ward 3. However, the Mayor and her supporting Council members consistently fail to point out the reason for this.

Councilman May pointed out months ago that he could not vote for George Blonden at that time because he had no information about the man, his qualifications, or his experience. Councilman May also stated that he had not been given an opportunity to speak to the gentleman as well. With no information about George Blonden it seems reasonable that these Council members would vote against his appointment. I would expect all honorable elected officials would do the same, in regard to any appointment.

The Mayor has chosen to consistently re-nominate George Blonden, knowing that his nomination would not pass because she has yet to make any effort to inform the Council about George Blonden's background, qualifications, etc. The Mayor asked the community for applications from residents of Ward 3 to fill the vacant seat. She has received several applications, and has also heard from several more volunteers during residents comments at past Council meetings. However, the Mayor continues to attempt to appoint the same person whom she knows the majority of the Council will not vote for, ignoring all other volunteers and ignoring the Council's repeated requests for more information about this man.

What does the Mayor have to say about why she will not appoint any of those residents who applied or volunteered to fill that seat at her request? Good question. To the best of our knowledge not one person who wrote to the Mayor at her request about filling the vacant seat in Ward 3 has heard back from the Mayor (feel free to email me if you know of someone who has been contacted by the Mayor concerning their offer to fill that seat).

If the Mayor wants to lay blame on someone for the fact that the vacant seat in Ward 3 remains vacant she need only look into the mirror. She is the one who:

• apparently refuses to consider any other applicants
• apparently refuses to give the Council more information
• chose not to vacate that seat when she ran for Mayor

If she would consider other applicants, the seat might be filled. If she would simply provide more information about George Blonden to the City Council and allow them to meet with and speak to the man, the seat might be filled. If she acted like a responsible public official, and vacated her seat when she chose to run for Mayor, that seat would have been filled at the last election (instead she chose to hold on to it, probably because she was not completely confident that she would win the election).

So, who is it that is responsible for:

DENYING THE RIGHTS OF FULL & FAIR
REPRESENTATION TO ALL OVERLAND RESIDENTS

That would be Mayor Ann Purzner.

As for questioning someone's actions as a politician vs. their service in the US Military, I would like to remind the Mayor that all of us who actually served out country in uniform did so by first swearing an oath:

I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm)that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

We swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. That also means that we swore to uphold the laws of our land. We swore to do so against all enemies both foreign and domestic. That means that we swore to defend of country from all those who would violate her laws. Ask veterans how they feel about the Mayor's frequent attempts to violate Overland Ordinances, State Statutes, and other Laws, including her attempts to violate residents Constitutional right of free speech. If you take the time, I think you will find that the vast majority will respond by saying they did not risk their lives for their country so that elected officials like Mayor Ann Purzner could ignore the laws and rules that govern her job.

Mayor Purzner, it is time for an honest dialog about the vacant seat in Ward 3 and a honest attempt to fill that seat. The question is, are you capable of this?

Please take a moment and contact the Mayor, asking if she is ever going to make an honest effort to fill the vacant seat in Ward 3 instead of purposely keeping it vacant to try to use that vacancy for political gain.

Mayor Ann Purzner
City Hall: Phone: (314) 428-4321
Fax: (314) 428-3515
Mayor's Home phone and address
Email: mayorpurzner@overlandmo.org

Perhaps if the Mayor starts to hear from enough Residents of Overland she will start listening to us more than outside interests.

I would like the thank Councilman Schneider for his service to our country in uniform, and his continued service to this community as a Councilman of Ward 4. Honorable people are easy to recognize. They are the ones willing to discuss specifics, and not hide behind sound bites, and misrepresentations of facts.

Overland City Council Meeting 9/25/06

The City Council Meeting of September 25th, 2006 was held at the Overland Community Center and was attended by somewhere in excess of 260 people. I cannot report the exact number because I received conflicting reports that evening. However, all of them put the count in the 260s.

At the beginning of the meeting the Mayor informed us that the camera, for Channel 18 was not working. As a result the meeting would not be televised. Some suggested this was intentional, though personally I doubt the cameraman would have worked so hard, for so long on the camera if it was actually working.

The first thing we noticed at the meeting were the changes in the agenda. There were several interesting changes made on this meeting's agenda compared to past agendas.

(click image for full sized version)To compare to other agendas click here.

The first notable change was the move to put the residents comments at the end of the meeting. Theories and rumors were on everyone's mind regarding this action. However, I personally believe it was a wise move. By moving the comments to the end of the meeting you ensure that all of the regular business gets done first. Since residents comments have been the source of many debates among the Council members and we knew we've risked lawsuits by restricting them in the past, this was a wise move in my view. Also, you give residents a chance to comment on what just happened at that meeting. The Council might benefit from the possible immediate feedback that could result. I have to admit, I expected to see several on the Council walk out of the meeting before residents comments or at least before they were completed. I am happy to report I was wrong, and that all of our elected officials remained until their conclusion and a proper vote to adjourn that followed.

The next change involved adjourning in the middle of the Council meeting to executive session. Halting a public meeting midway through to adjourn to a private meeting and then return to the public meeting again made little sense to me. I am not sure of the reasoning here. I suspect that the intent was to ensure that the executive session was completed before residents comments which has been the source of such turmoil on the Council lately. I would like to suggest that the Mayor and the Council consider changing the start time of the Public Meeting to 8PM. Then they can schedule their executive session at 7PM the same day. The Council can meet for executive session, conduct whatever business is needed and then go to the public Council meeting without interruption and without concern that the executive session would not take place. Adjourning in the middle of the public meeting is unnecessarily disruptive in my opinion.

At this meeting the executive session in fact did not take place. Several on the Council voted against adjourning to the executive session causing that motion to fail. The reasons varied. Some complained that they did not feel they should do this in the middle of the public meeting, while others took issue with not having enough time to review information "packets" before the meeting.

After the Council failed to adjourn to executive session the Mayor asked to have several individuals speak to the Council. One was Mr. Hanson, a developer. Another was Mr. Cunningham, an Attorney the City has worked with in the past on real estate projects. A review of the above agenda shows that neither was originally scheduled to talk to the Council publicly. When asked about this the Mayor explained that they were scheduled to address the Council at the executive session. What I am curious about is why they were scheduled to discuss the issue in executive session and not publicly in the first place. The Sunshine Law does reference real estate matters when it comes to exemptions. However, the spirit of that provision, in my opinion, is to protect those involved from profiteering by others. The Mayor's choice to ask these gentleman to speak at the public meeting suggests to me that no such issue was involved. I hope future dealings on these matters will be handled publicly.

Several on the Council objected to allowing Mr. Hanson to speak, on the grounds that he was not originally on the agenda. I would have liked to hear what the man had to say personally, so I agree with Councilman Owensby when he asked "what is wrong with letting the man speak". However, it still begs the question as to why originally scheduling him to speak to the Council in executive session was necessary.

Mr Herman, the City Attorney, expressed concern about these dealings, pointing out that he had only been copied on these issues a week prior, though it was apparent that meetings on these matters had been going on for much longer. Mr. Cunningham, the Attorney apparently engaged by the City (without a vote of the Council to do so as far as I can tell), explained that "cutting" the City Attorney out of the loop was not intentional. Mr. Herman pointed out that the City had done business with Mr. Cunningham's firm in the past and expressed that he was a skilled professional and had no issue with working with him. My own concerns on this entire issue are simple. How was this attorney's services engaged without a vote of the Council, a contract, etc? Mr. Cunningham also claimed the work that would be done researching possible options would be paid for by the developer. He included his own fees in that cost, yet there was a bill from his office for his services submitted to the City and listed among the bills for the Council's consideration at this meeting.

My guess, is that the City pays him to represent us. By receiving his pay from the City, any possible conflicts of interest are avoided. Once the deal is decided one way or the other, I assume the developer will reimburse the city for the expenses from Mr. Cunningham's firm. However, I would like the City to explain this a bit better so I can be sure that is the case.

8801 Page and 2500 Ashby are apparently developments under consideration regarding this developer. I cannot be completely sure on this as the City has not been very forthcoming with information on these properties so far, and Mr. Hanson had not been allowed to speak on the issue. I would really appreciate it if the City would be a bit more open and explain to us what is under consideration and where.

One of the issues raised by Councilman O'Connell was a possible "substantial tax abatement" involved in one or both of these developments. Personally, I don't have a negative opinion of tax abatements. However, you have to show that the tax revenue you give up is worth the eventual return. That requires numbers that can be analyzed and we have yet to see those. Without the numbers, I cannot support such a measure. I hope more detailed information will become available soon.

Eventually the Council voted to table these discussions and return to them in the Parks Committee. I would like to attend such meetings and I hope they are properly, publicly announced in advance.

The Mayor stated that we financed the purchase of the Seminary property at 2500 Ashby, and that it is costing us $200,000.00 a year in payments. She also stated that we would lose the insurance on the property after December as it is unoccupied. The fact is, one building is occupied as a police substation and another is regularly rented out. The remaining buildings are unoccupied. However, I am sure the financing company requires insurance on the property. What is curious to me is that though the property was completely unoccupied when it was first insured, apparently without issue, we would now, according to the Mayor, be unable to get insurance with it partially occupied. Again, further clarification is needed from the City on this issue.

The Mayor pointed out that several of the buildings suffered water damage from the previous rains. However, some on the Council mentioned that $45,000.00 was budgeted in the Capital Improvements Budget (which passed unanimously) for repairs to prevent further water damage. This begs the question, if the money was budgeted why has nothing been done? It would be entirely possible that if something had been started it would not yet be completed. However, as far as I can tell no project has been started to protect this property thus far.

One of the "highlights" of the meeting was an exchange between the Mayor and the City Attorney. The Mayor claimed she paid all of Mr. Herman's bills with the exception of the Sunshine Law case. The Mayor seems to believe that Mr. Herman was representing the Plaintiffs in that case. In reality, his was representing the City of Overland as per his contractual obligations with the City.

Mr. Herman pointed out that he only charged the City 1/3rd of his normal billing rate as an Attorney. Mr. Knode mentioned that Mr. Herman stated at a previous meeting that he could wait to be paid until after the Mayor left office if need be. Mr. Herman acknowledged that, but explained that his issue was the Mayor's statement that she had paid all his bills, and he wanted to make it clear that several had in fact not been paid.

Later when the Mayor read a veto letter the exchange got even more interesting. In her veto letter the Mayor suggested that some of Mr. Herman's actions were unethical. Mr. Herman of course took issue with this. To the Mayor's credit she agreed that this was uncalled for and stated she would remove that part from the veto letter.

The Veto was regarding the 5-2 vote not to Pay Mr. Rudman's legal bills from when he represented the Mayor during the Sunshine Law case. Though the Mayor vetoed the vote NOT to pay the bill, there has never been a vote of the Council the engage Mr. Rudman's services, or enter into a contract with him. As a result the City still cannot pay his bill. The Mayor engaged Mr. Rudman's services privately, so I imagine she will have to handle the bill for those services privately as well.

The other bill the Council had voted not to pay at the previous meeting was an 800.00 bill from a consultant. At that time several on the Council expressed concerns about not knowing who this consultant was, or what he was working on. There had not been a vote of the Council to engage his services either. However, at this meeting the Mayor claimed that she paid his bill personally (which I assume means out of her own pocket). When asked by Councilman Schneider if the Council would be seeing a report or any information regarding what the consultant was working on the Mayor told him no. She explained that since the City was not paying his bill they were not entitled to any report. In principle I agree with her. That is of course assuming that nothing he was doing was done by this consultant under the color of authority or sanction of the City of Overland.

One issue I had at the meeting was when Mr. Owensby read the minutes from the Public Works committee meeting. My concern is that I never saw an announcement for this committee meeting. The committee meetings are supposed to be publicly accessible and announced at least 24 hours in advance. Considering that several residents (and at least one non-resident) were listed in the minutes as being in attendance I think it is safe to say it was a public meeting. So where was it publicly posted? I was under the impression the City intended to start posting all meeting announcements on the website. I would have liked to attend this meeting to better understand what is going on in our community. I would also like to attend all committee meetings in the future. I think I will need to start taking daily trips to City Hall to check out our tiny bulletin board to ensure that I do not miss anything in the future.

Another issue that came up was when Mr. Knode was recognized to speak. He spoke at length on various issues. One bit of confusion came at the very beginning of his comments. He mentioned that he was a resident among other things. As a result some took issue when his comments went longer then 3 minutes (they were around 15 minutes I believe). To set the record straight, his comments did not come during the residents comments portion of the meeting. Also, he was recognized to speak by the Chairman (the Mayor). Being a Councilman, being recognized to speak during the meeting, and not being limited by the Chair in the length of those comments is entirely proper. He was not subject to a 3 minute time limit.

At one point in Councilman Knode's remarks he accused the Chief of being derelict in his duties by not removing "disturbers" from the Council meetings, or enforcing Ordinance number 220.260 (Disrupting a Public Meeting). The Chief responded by stating that he takes direction on this issue from the Mayor, not Councilman Knode or others. Councilman Knode argued that this was true but that he had repeatedly asked the Mayor to direct the Chief to remove "disturbers". The Chief did not respond. However, as we have all seen at previous meetings there have been many times when Councilman Knode asked the Mayor to direct the chief in this manner, and the Mayor did not do so. I am not sure what the issue is here. The person responsible for determining who is disturbing a meeting and thus might be in violation of Ordinance 220.260 would the Chairman of the meeting in question. If the Chairman does not act to have someone removed, then no one gets removed. To have a crime, you need a complainant.

Overall the meeting went pretty well in the light of past meetings. City business was accomplished and all of the residents who asked to speak were allowed to do so. I hope this is beginning of improved meetings in our future. I also hope that the City will begin to better inform the public about various issues as well as committee meetings in the future.