Firefox 2


Thursday, February 01, 2007

Helping the Mayor "Recall"

Rumor has it that one of the Mayor's legal tactics to block the Recall from the April 3rd Ballot may be to suggest that the vote on this measure never happened at the December 11th, 2006 Council Meeting.

According to the approved minutes of that meeting the vote happened. At one point in the meeting the council voted on an ordinance to add the measure to the ballot. That vote went 4-3 and as this lacked 5 votes the prevailing wisdom is that the ordinance did not pass. However, it's likely that an ordinance is not required (as we reported earlier here).

Later in the meeting, Councilman May made a motion to put the recall of the Mayor on the April ballot. Though the Mayor resisted at first, she polled the vote with the results being 4-3. After the vote the Mayor claimed 5 votes were needed to pass this measure. However, it was not a ordinance, it was a simple vote which only requires a simple majority (4 being the majority of 7) to pass.

You can see this vote for yourself here:




The existence of this vote is further supported by the approved minutes from the December 11th meeting that were approved at the January 22nd, 2007 meeting.


From the approved Minutes of the
December 11th, 2006 Overland City Council Meeting
(click images below to see at full size)

Minutes December 11th, 2006 Page 8..........Minutes December 11th, 2006 Page 9
Page 8........................Page 9


The approval of those minutes can be seen here:

(please excuse the jumpy camera work)

It appears that this vote did it fact happen. The Mayor and her legal team can argue about the need for an ordinance if they want to waste the courts time, but they cannot argue that a vote on the measure didn't take place.

For your review, we've recently covered the legalities of the Recall measure both here and here.

Labels: , , ,



2 Comments:



At 8:26 AM, February 02, 2007, Blogger Overland Sailor said...

So far we've heard the argument that the recall is not valid because it requires an ordinance and that appears to be shot down. We've also heard the argument that the reasons for the Recall are not valid, even though the St. Louis County Courts found against the Mayor in both cases. And now we hear that another argument might be that a vote for the Recall never happened in December, though this article shows it obviously did. There have also been suggestions of bad or fraudulent signatures. However, with 3605 certified by the St. Louis County Election Board, they would have to find fault with 1106 to invalidate the recall which seems unlikely at best.

Have there been anymore claims against the Recall? Any guesses on what the next one might be?

 


At 4:02 PM, February 02, 2007, Blogger Overland Sailor said...

A little research this morning turned up some additional links.

Local TV media
(articles linked have videos as well):

As always, Mike O'Connell of KMOV News (Channel 4) is on the job:

KMOV 4 - January 2nd, 2007
KMOV 4 - January 8th, 2007

There was also a good story by Chris Regnier at FOX 2 on this subject:

FOX 2 - January 9th, 2007

Newspapers:

02/01/2007 Post Dispatch article
by Norm Parish

01/31/2007 Suburban Journal article
by Sonia Ahuja

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

....................................................

Project Vote Smart