Overland City Council Meeting 11/27/2006

At the November 27th Overland City Council Meeting alot of interesting things came to light. As time allows we will cover all of it. For now though, I thought everyone would be interested in what the Mayor had to say in response to a residents question about what the $616,200.00 figure in the 2006/2007 proposed budget actually pays for. We have been asking what this service will include, but have never gotten a response.....until now:

The Mayor finally told us what we already knew, but could not get her to confirm. The "City Paid Trash Service" will not include "City Paid" yard waste and recycling pickup. We still do not know what else we will have to pay for beyond that.

However, earlier during that same conversation Councilman Knode said "it could be done I guess" when asked to include specific details in the proposed "City Paid" Trash ballot measure.

We are all glad to hear that Mr. Knode, and we are looking forward to getting those details, specifically how much the residents will still have to pay personally for this "City Paid" service ($9.65 / month would be my guess).

The proposed ordinance for "City Paid Trash Service" would add a question to the ballot asking the residents to vote yes or no. That proposed ordinance appears below:

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

Most of it is the legal language needed for an ordinance to be legal, or to satisfy election law. However the Ballot question proposed would ask:

"Shall the City of Overland, Missouri, provide City Paid Trash Service
to the residents of Overland, St.Louis County, Missouri?"

That is all that the ballot would say should that ordinance pass. No mention of what "City Paid Trash Service" means (as you can see above the Mayor already told us that it doesn't include yard waste or recycling), or what the residents will still have to pay for the yard waste, recycling and more that the Mayor already pointed out was not included in the proposed City Budget (if you call Allied Waste they will tell you that their contracts HAVE to include yard waste and recycling pickup).

More on this meeting later.

Sunshine Law Hearing Nov. 20th, 2006

On November 20th 2006 Judge Thea A. Sherry heard the final day of courtroom argument on the Sunshine Law case where six residents of Overland filed suit against Mayor Ann Purzner and the City of Overland over alleged violations of the Sunshine Law.

The alleged violations in question were the repeated failures of the City and the Mayor to move the City Council meetings to venues that could accommodate all those wishing to attend. Though meetings have been happening at the Overland Community Center lately, that is due to a preliminary injunction issued by the Judge during the earlier hearing. Prior to that injunction, the meetings were held at the City Council Chambers repeatedly, resulting in residents being turned away due to the space's maximum capacity limit of 160 (as restricted by fire code).

Residents and interested parties all expected a ruling on the case to be handed down that day. There were several days of argument on this case earlier in the year, at the end of which the judge stated there would be only one more day they would spend on the issue in court. Though the courtroom arguments concluded and t were followed by several hours spent by the attorneys in Chambers with the judge, the court eventually stood adjourned without a final resolution.

At this point the lawyers for each of the three parties have been instructed to submit documents for the Judge's review. These documents are called "Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusions", which have been described as a compilation of the facts and legal arguments made in the case, each side presenting their own views. The Judge gave them a December 18th 2006 deadline to submit those documents for her review. It is expected that she will issue a written ruling some time after that.

The case went much more smoothly and quickly than it had gone in the preliminary hearing. One change was that the City's insurance company had sent two lawyers to handle the case from here. Mr. Rudman, the attorney who represented the Mayor in the earlier hearing, did not present argument or cross-examine witnesses. That was handled by one of the Insurance company attorneys. Those who had been in attendance at the preliminary hearing would understand why that is likely the primary reason the case moved forward much more swiftly and directly this time around.

I was surprised when the Attorney representing the Mayor called her to the stand. However, the attorneys obviously did their job very well as the Mayor seemed quite prepared for the stand and did well. One interesting change that came to light was a legal argument we had not heard before (or at least have not heard it laid out so clearly). The Mayor's defense seemed to hinge on this concept.

The argument made was that there is Overland Ordinance 110.150 which states among other things:

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

The Mayor made the argument from the stand that the ordinance "required" she hold Council meetings at City Hall. She went on to point out that Overland Ordinance 110.260 requires a 5 vote majority to change an ordinance. The conclusion being that the 4-3 vote was not sufficient to change the ordinance. The Mayor went on to state that she does not have the authority to move the meetings, that power rests with the Council.

So the Mayor's argument seems to boil down to the fact that she does not have the authority to move the meetings on her own, and the Council failed to have sufficient votes to change the Ordinance that "requires" meetings be held at City Hall, so the meetings could not be legally moved.

We could likely write a book on the various legal issues with this argument (State Statute trumping Municipal Ordinance for example) but I would ask that everyone, for the sake of discussion, consider this to be fact for a moment. So, though we know there are a lot of holes in this argument on its own, we are all going to treat it as valid when considering the following:

The Mayor also testified that she directed the July 10th, 2006 City Council Meeting be moved to the Wild Acres Gym in an attempt to better accommodate the residents wishing to attend.

On one hand, the Mayor argues that she does not have the authority to move a meeting, but on the other she argues that she moved one in an attempt to accommodate the residents. She argues that moving a meeting would violate Overland Ordinance 110.150 if there are not at least 5 votes to change that ordinance, yet she testified to moving a meeting without 5 votes to Wild Acres. I am no lawyer, but these two arguments seem to oppose, not support, each other.

As for the other issues with the Mayor's original argument I would like to review some of the problems. As everyone knows, unless ruled unconstitutional, federal law supersedes state statute, state statute supersedes county code, county code supersedes municipal ordinance, etc. The Sunshine Law (Missouri Revised Statutes, 610.020) clearly states in section #2:

Each meeting shall be held at a place reasonably accessible to the public and of sufficient size to accommodate the anticipated attendance by members of the public

That being a state statute, it takes precedence over a municipal ordinance. However, if we give the Mayor the benefit of the doubt, and assume she thought it was her responsibility as the Mayor to enforce the City Ordinances, regardless of any conflict with state statute or other laws, then we have to ask the Mayor why she did not feel compelled to enforce Overland Ordinance 140.090 (which mirrors the Missouri Sunshine Law requirement). Overland Ordinance 140.090 says in part:

Each meeting shall be held at a place reasonably accessible to the public, and of sufficient size to accommodate the anticipated attendance by members of the public

It appears that the Mayor did not simply ignore the Missouri Sunshine Law, she also ignored Overland Ordinances on the subject. Overland Ordinance 140.090 is worded exactly the same as the Sunshine law on this point.

There is also an issue with the Mayor's past claims to being unable to move the meeting due to Overland Ordinance 110.150 's suggested requirement to hold meetings at City Hall, because she is required to uphold and enforce the Ordinances of the City of Overland. Though it is true that Overland Ordinance 110.030 requires that the Mayor enforce the Ordinances, it does not stop there. That ordinance says in part:

The Mayor shall be active and vigilant in enforcing all laws and ordinances for the government of the City

As the City is not empowered to enact law it is obvious that the Mayor is required not just to enforce the ordinances, but also all laws FOR the government of the City (FOR not OF the government of the City).

There is one more interesting angle to the Mayor's latest defense. When the Mayor claims that she was unable to move the meetings because that is the responsibility of the City Council and the vote of the Council to do so was 4-3, she is in essence shifting the responsibility for allegedly violating the Sunshine Law from herself to the Council.

Since four members of the Council voted consistently to move the meetings in an effort to follow the Sunshine Law, that leaves three Council Members, specifically Councilman Knode, Councilman Sellers and Councilman Owensby as the potentially responsible parties for these alleged violations if the Mayor's argument is to be considered valid. It will be interesting to see if any Citizens choose to file suit against these Council Members if the Mayor's defense based on this argument is successful (as unlikely as that might be).

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.

Who gave us the term "Free Trash"?

On November 16th, 2006 Mayor Ann Purzner posted on her personal website where she blamed Councilman Schneider and others for confusing the issue by using the term "Free Trash" (we can only assume that this was written by Mayor Purzner since it appears on her personal site and is not signed by or attributed to anyone else).

One tends to hear a lot of wild talk when some politicians start talking about your tax payer dollars. We all know how TAX & SPENDERS will say ANYTHING to get in your pocketbook.

Like the one about "FREE TRASH"...
...Well of course we all understand that nothing in this life is
free.

-These folks just love to use the term "FREE TRASH"
to confuse and muddle the issues.
Click here to hear Mr. Schneider

Well Mayor Purzner, you and your supporters should check again because your hypocrisy is showing.......again.

Back in June 2006, Overland residents were "treated" to propaganda littering their front yards. The Overland Watch "Newspaper" (AKA "the red rag") had a lot to say about "FREE TRASH" much of which was in quotes directly attributed to Mayor Ann Purzner and Councilman Knode. One of these references was even in a column that was entirely attributed to the Mayor. You can check for yourself at the link above.

For your review (note items quoted from other sources will appear in blue for easy reading):

The Overland Watch's front page has a yellow box directly under the Mayor's picture. What does it say in that box?:

Mayor Purzner’s Budget Asks For
Free Trash Pickup
Eliminate All Wasteful Spending
Decrease Overpaid Dept Heads Pay

That article goes on to say:

Mayor Purzner told the Overland Watch that restoring FREE trash pickups was one of her main priorities in this years budget.

And that article specifically quoted Mayor Purzner as saying:

I am going to ask this committee to do everything possible to return to the residents free trash pickup.

If these are inaccurate quotes then I assume the Mayor will be suing that paper? That might be difficult since she has stated in the past that she doesn't know who produced it (even though she later said she knew "they" (the people she does not know) were not in attendance at the July 10th, 2006 Council meeting when asked by a resident during the comments portion of the meeting).

Then there is the kicker, an article called "A Message To The Residents of Overland From Mayor Ann Purzner". We can only assume this was in fact written by Mayor Purzner since it is presented that way, and it's even "signed" with her name at the end. If she had ever protested this article or claimed it was not from her we might be able to give her the benefit of the doubt, but we have not seen that happen. In that article Mayor Ann Purzner says:

My goal is to restore free trash services

It should be noted that Mayor Purzner did not have all the fun. Councilman Knode is also quoted in that paper. In an "article" entitled "STRONG ARM TACTICS OR INSANITY AT CITY HALL" Councilman Knode is quoted as stating the following:

The money that the taxpayer pays for services should and will be returned to them in public services such as free trash service.

Interesting how those who created the term "FREE TRASH" and tried to use it for political gain now suddenly claim the use of it by others is wrong. Mayor Purzner and Councilman Knode clearly thought this was a proper term just a few months ago. I do not begrudge anyone a change of heart, but it is absurd for them to try to attribute this term to anyone other than themselves.

Now that everyone finally seems to agree that there is nothing FREE about the trash service maybe Mayor Purzner, Councilman Knode, and others will finally share with us the specifics of their trash collection plans. How is it funded? Are you planning to go with the Allied Waste Proposal you have already received that will REQUIRE residents pay $28.95 a quarter in addition to over $600,000.00 in City Funds? What services will we receive? Are we going to be restricted to 2 cans a week as has been rumored? How will you pay for this in the budgets to come (2007/2008, 2008/2009, etc)? Are you going to share with us this new proposal's planned annual increases to the residents fees? Are you going to follow the law and go out for bid on this service or are you just going to take a deal that was negotiated at non-disclosed locations by non-disclosed individuals?

In honor of Thanksgiving I am asking Mayor Purzner and Councilman Knode to start talking Turkey and give the Council, as well as the residents, the specifics of this plan. How they can expect anyone to support it without knowing what they are specifically proposing is beyond me. This is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration. Perhaps Mayor Purzner, Councilman Knode and others will finally treat it, and us, seriously.

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.

Online Polls for Overland

Recently the Mayor added a poll to her website asking the residents of Overland to vote on the trash issue. However, there are several problems with this poll. To start with, it is a classic push poll. Worse still, you can only vote via email, which would require that you disclose your personal email address. I am surprised that the "chicken littles" sounding and/or supporting the Identity Theft alarm would actually require that you provide personal information in order to vote.

In an attempt to better serve the residents of Overland I have added a poll to this site which can be found at the top of the left hand column. This is not a scientific poll, but I believe it will clearly show that the Residents of Overland are not willing to support anything when they are not given specifics.

Please feel free to participate in our poll. We do not require that you disclose any personal information as we think the secret ballot approach that has served this country so well for centuries works just fine.

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.

Mystery authors are at it again

Everyone in Overland received the following postcard in the mail today, November 6th, 2006:

(Click image to see full size version)

Amazing what people will mail these days. First of all, I think every reasonable person tends to question information they get when they do not know the source. In this case, the postcard claims to come from:

To start with, As of November 11th, 2006 The Missouri Secretary of States office had no record of any company or organization existing under any of the following names:

• Missouri Safety Advisory Committee - 5:34:08 PM
• Safety Advisory Committee of Missouri - 5:34:49 PM
• Safety Advisory Committee - 5:35:00 PM

That said, the badge gives them credibility right? After all, who can make a badge? Well, consider this:

It took me five minutes to create that (I added the "For Demonstration Only" myself).

It is clear that this postcard suffers from the same credibility issues that all the other recent mailings have suffered from. But what about what it says (Text Quoted from the Postcard is blue in color for ease of reading)?

Throughout St. Louis area selected polling places are expected to have individuals attempting to get voters to sign petitions for various reason. We want to remind voters of the numerous incidents and crimes that have occurred throughout the metropolitan area involving petitions.

Interesting. First, you would think a professional organization would have caught the "reason" mistake and corrected it to "reasons" before it was printed. Of course, we all know the producers of this document only really care about one "reason", that being the petition seeking a recall election for the Mayor of Overland. Next we see that they want to remind us of "numerous incidents and crimes". Of course they forgot to add those specific reminders.

Recently there have been news article where the Chief of Police in Overland wants the people to believe that it is safe to sign petitions and give out personal information to strangers. THE CHIEF IS GIVING OUT INACCURATE INFORMATION.

"there have been news article"? Hmmm, this "committee" really needs a copy editor. That said, the news article they are likely mentioning would be this one from The St. Louis Post-Dispatch by Norm Parish on 10/19/2006. In that article, Chief Herron is quoted as saying:

"We believe the flier is misleading," 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."

Inaccurate information? Are the mystery writers suggesting that Chief Herron does know of identity theft or any other illegal activity connected to the recall? If that is what they mean, then it should not take long to find out where these mailings originated if C.O.G.G.'s attorneys subpoena the post office for a potential libel suit.

Interesting how they suggest the Chief of Police's attempt to correct the earlier mailings misleading information is inaccurate. Perhaps, the Chief has a potential libel suit here now.

Unfortunately these articles go to more cities then just Overland. We understand that the Chief of Overland has and on-going dispute with the Mayor because she attempted to replace the Chief, and she has refused to give him a raise. However, we are concerned this information may have far reaching effects beyond Overland City Limit.

OK, what are they suggesting here? Are they saying the Chief lied to the public about possible Identity Theft issues with the petition because he was upset with the Mayor? Hmmmmmmm, this is looking more and more like a libel suit to me. When it happens, I will report from that courtroom daily.

Oh, and they forgot to point out that the "issue" between the Chief and the Mayor was her attempt to illegally remove him from office. The Courts ruled she could not do it, and her Appeal was just dismissed because her Attorney did not file required paperwork (maybe the Mayor finally realizes that she was wrong, or maybe her attorney friends are tired of working for free).

Most people understand that if the wrong person gets your signature, they can then forge checks, credit card applications, even forge mail ordered items that often times end up costing victims time, money, unnecessary aggravation and credit rating.

Well, though grammar and I are not on close terms, even I can see that these folks seriously need a copy editor.

They are right, if the wrong person gets your signature they could use it to learn how to forge your name. Yet we all sign receipts at the store, we sign for packages, we even sign forms to request the opportunity to speak at our City Council meetings. Why are we not all victims of I.D. Theft? Because an Identity Thief also needs your social security number, birth date and more.

Also, on those applications they mentioned, how it is signed is irrelevant to the bank or card company because they have nothing to compare it to. Why bother forging someone's name when they could sign it anyway they choose and if all the other information was correct (SSN, DOB, other account numbers, etc) the application would still be accepted?

REAL SAFETY REMINDER: To avoid Identity Theft, get a Cross-Cut shredder and use it to completely destroy anything with your social security number, date of birth, account numbers, etc before throwing them away. Identity Thieves need your trash, not your signature.

We in the law enforcement community want to make it clear IT IS UN-SAFE TO GIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION OR SIGNATURES TO STANGERS.

Well, I would sure like to know what law enforcement community this is. No legitimate organization of Law Enforcement professionals would operate outside of State requirements by using an unregistered, fictitious name.

However, they did point out that it is un-wise to give personal information or signatures to strangers. Thankfully, this will not be an issue for the recall petition. After all, every pair of people working on gathering signatures from registered voters are Residents of Overland. You or someone you know likely knows them.

Perhaps if these mystery writers would use a printing company run by an Overland Resident they would have better copy editing available to them. Of course, based on the content of this postcard it is obvious they think we are all idiots. Maybe they figured they didn't need to spend any extra time or money on grammar and the like.

If you are as offended as I am by this, and you have yet to sign the recall petition (and you're a resident of Overland as well as a registered voter), be sure to look for C.O.G.G. members at all the polling places on Tuesday, November 7th, 2006. They will be standing by, making it easy for voters to sign if they choose to do so. Send the Mayor and her supporters a "message" of your own.

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.