An Open Letter to Missouri's U.S. Senators

I rarely trouble our readers with national political issues. However, this one I happen to feel strongly about. Whether people agree with the existence of various federal regulations and regulatory bodies or not, most will tend to agree that if you are going to have them, you should at least ensure that they do the job they were created to do.

Next month the US Senate will be considering the appointment of Michael Baroody to head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Mr. Baroody is not the man for the job in our opinion, as well as the opinion of eight consumers groups including the Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America.

For more information check out this white paper (pdf file) that those eight groups put out on this issue.

The following is an open letter to the U.S. Senate and specifically Missouri's Senators:

------------------------------------------

Senators,

On May 3rd, a confirmation hearing is tentatively scheduled to consider Michael Baroody to head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

I am sure that personally, Mr. Baroody is a good man. However, his background as a executive vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers is in direct conflict with the very mission of the CPSC.

NAM has consistently opposed making it easier for consumers and parents to get timely recall information, and has opposed nearly every effort by the CPSC and other groups to improve product safety for the public.

It is completely illogical to me to appoint someone who's career has centered around opposing an organization's mission to now head that very organization. I agree that there should be voices from manufactures on the Commission, but the head of the Commission should not only support, but embrace, the mission of the CPSC if it is to be anything other than a paper tiger.

I am writing to you to request that you strongly and vocally oppose Mr. Baroody's appointment at this hearing. We need someone who embraces the concepts of child safety and keeping consumers properly informed and Mr. Baroody is not that person.

Thank you for your time and consideration,


John Moyle
Overland, Missouri

------------------------------------------

If you would like to send a letter to your Senators on this issue (regardless as to whether you agree or disagree with our position) you can do so at these links:

Contact form for: Senator Kit Bond
Contact form for: Senator Clair McCaskill

For Those in Other States you can find your Senator's contact form here (just select your state in the drop down box).

Video of April 23rd Council Meeting Available

At April 23rd's Council meeting the camera for Charter Cable went down. The city asked if I could make my video available to Charter which of course I was willing to do. However, after talking to Charter there were several reasons they could not use my video (the funniest of which was that they had no way to broadcast digital content on Channel 18).

So, the City opted to do the next best thing to help make sure the public can see the meeting. Our video of the meeting is now being hosted on the Overland Missouri homepage. Though I could have hosted the video myself via Google Video, I could not host it at a very good quality. The City was able to host a higher quality version. The City of Overland, especially Rich Kessler at MIS, went above and beyond to try to make this meeting available to the public. I am sure everyone appreciates it (so why not take a moment next week and let them know).

One small disclaimer: I didn't shoot this video knowing it would need to be hosted in it's entirety. As a result I you will see a few skips in it. Normally I only post interesting potions of the video, and in this particular case I made a few manual clips of each swearing in ceremony so I could send them to each of the new Council people (which I still have to do). Rest assured nothing should be missing from the meeting coverage.

So, go to the City Website as see how video looks before we compress and convert the heck out of it to get it on Google or YouTube. Enjoy!

Friday BBQ

Update:

some Overland Council members took "public service" to another level

The BBQ was great. I walked up there with my daughter and we were glad we got there early because the ran out of food after about an hour. Overland Councilpersons Mary Beth Conlon and Mike Schneider were there dishing our the great eats.

The Community Center has a touch catch-22 situation with these BBQs. If the make more food than they can sell, the loose money. If they don't make enough we all complain. Assuming there are no health department issues and the like, perhaps we can invest in a storage freezer so they can have more food on hand and can BBQ as they go in the future. If there are health department issues to consider (which I imagine would be the case) that this even will continue to be a bit of a gamble for them. It was a fun time! Don't miss the next one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry folks, I try to catch them all but sometimes I miss a few (and if you see any other events missing from our list PLEASE email me by clicking here to let me know). In this case I missed a great event happening Friday, April 27th.

The Community Center is hosting a BBQ
from 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
on Friday April 27th.

The cost is $5.00 a person and for that they have Pork Steaks, Brats, and much much more! I know I am moving into a lower case "b" posture lately, but I can never say no to Brats. Hope to see everyone there!

New Council Moving Forward

The April 23rd Overland City Council Meeting went very well. It was nice to see that our Council could hold a meeting without an excess of yelling and posturing. Hopefully this example of good conduct will filter down to those in attendance as well. There were 2 resident comments at the meeting and both were friendly and about the future, not the past which is much appreciated.

Our new Council Members were sworn in and we would like to once again congratulate Councilpersons Cuminale, Conlon, Keller, and Jones. We would also like to thank Councilpersons Knode, Sellers, and Corcoran for their service to the community. Though we may have frequently disagreed on policy issues, we greatly respect them for stepping up to serve the Community. Being a Councilperson is far more work than most people realize and they are certainly not paid enough to truly compensate for it. Regardless of political leanings and the like we appreciate all the people willing to step up and do this work for our City.

There was a public hearing at this meeting on the 8601 Page development that includes Beechnut's office. There were a few issues raised on this issue but I am going to go into detail on that in a later posting after I find the time to fully review the development plan. On the surface this looks like a great opportunity for Overland. Unlike the previous development deal this one has real details on what will be constructed and how.

The developer explained that they were working with Alberici to design this development to meet green building standards in an effort to achieve a Gold, LEED certification. Alberici got this ball rolling for Overland and if this development takes off we might be seeing the beginning of a trend. It would be great if we could effectively create a "green belt around the inner belt". More and more businesses are seeing the benefits not only to the environment but to their own public image and bottom lines by building green. Overland has an opportunity here to grow long into the future by attracting more like minded businesses.

The City issued a proclamation naming May 5th and 6th "Poppy Days". The Red Poppy is a flower and a symbol of the sacrifice of lives in all wars, as well as the American Legion Auxiliary. Every year volunteers of the Auxiliary distribute Poppy emblems in exchange for donations that they use to fund various veteran's programs. There is a bit more information on this at their national web site. If you see these folks out and about, please give a small donation, wear your Poppy proudly and remember to thank them for their efforts and hard work.

The Council also unanimously passed to the ordinance to hold the Mayoral election in August (Aug 7th, 2007). There have been some questions about this lately due to the announcements appearing on the City website, in the Post Dispatch, the Suburban Journal and the Localite. Rest assured nothing improper was done here. The City simply placed the ads to ensure that notice was properly given to people interested in running to know when to file. They would have had a bit of egg on their face had the Council chosen not to approve the ordinance, but the public notices did not require an ordinance, only the election did. They City acted in good faith to ensure that all interested parties had proper notice should the election ordinance pass. Had they not, I am sure there would have been issues raised.

A few other odds and ends were taken care of at that meeting. It was nice to have someone there from Public Works for a change. Chuck Boone asked for input from the Council members on which streets to focus repairs and maintenance on. The Chief informed us that the local American Red Cross had inspected the Community Center and agreed to operate a shelter there for the City in the event of an emergency in the future. Though the City's efforts to do this in the past were greatly appreciated, it is always better to have people who are properly trained and background checked to run these things. Also the City approved the Lion's club liquor license for the Lions Fair (to be held August 23rd - 26th). The Council also announced they would be having a Council Workshop meeting on the overdue budget as well as a few other odds and ends on Tuesday April 24th.

Though there were a few moments of contention and the like I am happy to say that the Workshop meeting on the 24th also went well, and the Council voted 7 to 1 to move forward with the budget they amended at that meeting. For the most part, since the 2006/2007 budget period is all but over the budget proposal was changed to reflect actual money spent in that time.

The Council voted to remove the trash service from this budget which made sense since even the supporters of a return to City paid trash service had to admit there was no way this could be implemented in the less than 3 months remaining in that budget period. The Council agreed to reconsider this issue in the near future and to seek competitive bids to determine if this is something the City can afford to do. They will need to go out for competitive bids on this service anyway as the contract will Allied Waste ends January 2008.

Another change was in how to address the employees pay. Many of the employees of our City have a step raise system in place which provides a 2 1/2% pay increase each year for 12 years (unless they started higher than step one which happens occasionally). Since this step raise system is an ordinance the employees should have gotten it starting in July 2006 (depending on
their anniversary dates), but without a budget, this could not be done.

The Council considered not giving this raise and instead doubling the step in next year's budget, however the employees had their raises frozen in the previous budget (2005/2006) for one year that due to the budget issues of late has turned into nearly 2 budget years without an increase. Also, since the step raises are an Overland Ordinance, failure to pay them, without passing an Ordinance to freeze them could result in lawsuits by employees that the City would not be able to successfully defend in my opinion.

Several approaches were considered. There is an issue with retroactively instituting those raises. How do you handle the various tax withholdings? How would the employees need to address the income taxes they already filed for 2006? How would the finance department possibly be able to get this done with everything else they now have to do at once (as we discuss further down)? As a result, the Council decided to institute a $1000.00 bonus to every full time employee to replace that step raise for that budget year.

To keep it simple I will be using round numbers to explain why this is reasonable. Basically at full manning the City has about 100 employees between all the departments with a total payroll of about 4 million dollars. That means the average salary is $40,000.00 a year. Remember, many of the hardest working employees make less than that but we are trying to keep this simple. 2 1/2% of $40,000.00 is $1000.00. So the City is making a effort to be fair as well as to avoid all the various issues that could be created with other approaches. There will be some employees who's step raise would have been somewhat less than that, however they are the lowest paid employees at the City and could surely use it. There will also be some employees who's raise would be a bit more than they would have gotten. This one time bonus will cost the City about $100,000.00 Interestingly, if the City did nothing and was sued there is a good possibility that the legal defense would cost about that much. These are not hard and fast numbers (other than the $1000.00 bonus). I just used rounded numbers to help illustrate the point, nothing more.

Something to consider is how the employee's likely felt prior to this meeting. They took their jobs with the step raise ordinance in place. The starting pay was likely lower than they might have wanted and was certainly lower than the same job would be worth in the private sector. However, knowing the step raises were there likely helped some decide to come work their tails off for us. Two budgets ago the city instituted a step freeze to help balance the budget. Since most of the employee's who were here then are still here now you can see that they were willing to "take one for the team". That freeze was for one year only (as the ordinance enacted to create it stated). Yet when the next budget period was supposed to start, and those next years steps would begin to kick in, our City government had become horribly dysfunctional resulting in the budget not being passed on time, so they never went into effect. Still the majority of employees understood the issue and stuck it out. They have taken it on the chin for us for almost 2 years, it is time for us to take care of them. This bonus is not a perfect solution, but it is a far better sign of good faith from the Council than "trust us". The people who keep our city running deserve this, and they deserve our thanks as well.

The Council also agreed to include starting to issue the Utility tax rebates once the Budget ordinance is approved. There was some discussion about possibly just doubling the next year's rebate but in the end the Council voted to include the rebates in the budget. Normally, Seniors start bringing in their utility tax receipts to City Hall in January and they would be processed and checks would be sent out on a first come, first served basis. This process generally ran from January to June every year. As a result, when they open up the process late for this rebate there is no way all the rebates will be processed before the end of this budget period in June. However, that does NOT mean people will lose out. The rebates will continue, the money allocated for them will simply be moved from this budget to the next year's to keep it in line with when it is actually spent. If all goes well, they'll all be completed in time to start the next refund process in January 2008.

This budget will not go into effect until the ordinance for it is created and is voted on at the next Council meeting, but this is real progress!

We've talked before about how hard the folks in the City Finance department have had to work with all the budget talks, changes, etc in this past year. However, that was a vacation for those poor people compared to what is coming now. With little to no time to do it they have to:

• Complete the Overdue budget and all the associated documentation, data entry, etc.
• Get the 2007/2008 budget work ready as that period starts this June.
• Handle the utility tax refunds
• Handle the employee bonus checks
• And do it all while doing their normal day to day work load and preparing for the next annual City audit.

And I am sure I probably left a bunch of things out.

These folks are going to have to work like crazed ferrets on intravenous triple espressos to get this all done. We have given them an impossible task, and due to the limited numbers of computers with the City's financial software on it we can't even bring in temps to help them out. I feel terrible for them and I wish there was something I could do to help them get it done, however all I would be is in the way.

They absolutely deserve your thanks and appreciation! Please, in the coming weeks swing by, call, or send them a note to say thanks. Send flowers, donuts, coffee, name you children after them, etc. These folks are going to need all the support we can give and they deserve every bit of it and more.

Don't forget the rest of the admin people at City Hall, Public Works, and the Police Department. All of these folks work tirelessly to keep everything working. Since it is Administrative Professionals Week this is the perfect time to pop in and say thank you. They all deserve it.

Overall these last two meetings are a great sign. Overland has begun the process of moving forward. You might need your sunglasses because the future of our community is looking brighter.

Last weeks poll

This article is pure commentary and speculation and as such it is more column than reporting. Though it's marginally news as it's topical and addresses various persistent rumors, the point of this post is to generate discussion (hopefully in out comments section).

Last weeks poll results had a clear winner. We asked readers if they would support replacing the Mayor by election or appointment and if election was their choice, when it should be held. With rumors all over Overland concerning different ways to address replacing Mayor Purzner, I thought I'd toss out the most viable ones and get people's opinions. Your responses were clear. 81% of you said we should hold an election in August.

As for the other options. There have been some credible reasons people support them. There are those who support a November election because they want all the potential candidates to have more time to properly campaign. There are others who support appointing a replacement because they want to see this issue resolved as soon as possible and hope to avoid a potentially contentious Mayor's race that could divide the city further.

In my opinion the appointment option would be a disaster. Everyone who signed the petition to recall Mayor Purzner was told there would be an election to replace her should the recall succeed. If the City decides to appoint rather than elect the next Mayor I suspect the majority of those people will be upset. The effort to avoid dividing Overland further could result in irreparably splintering the City in my opinion. When you consider Overland's political history I would imagine that significantly fewer people would have signed the Mayoral recall petition if they were told that some politicians in the future would choose the replacement for them.

The November election option is certainly more viable than appointing a replacement. However, why do we need to wait so long? It would allow potential candidates more time to campaign and make their case to the public. However, it would also mean that Overland will see political campaigns from now until April 2008, as a November Mayor's race would run right into the April Council campaigns. I'm concerned that a never-ending campaign season could turn a lot of potential voters off and drive citizen participation down. We want more residents to get involved not less. Also, when you consider all those who have been rumored to be interested in running, none so far are unknowns in Overland, so how much campaigning is really needed?

Personally, I support the August election option. I agree that we want to resolve this issue as soon as possible. The sooner we fill the Mayor's seat the sooner Overland can move forward. Until we permanently replace the Mayor, the question of who will fill that chair will likely dominate, and in some way hinder progress at City Hall. Overland needs to move forward and the first step in doing that is resolving unfinished business. Replacing the Mayor is important to most (if not all) voting residents and the majority seems to want this done sooner rather than later. Though appointment would resolve this issue even sooner it would be a political nightmare as residents would feel cheated. They were told there would be an election if Mayor Purzner was recalled and they want that election.

One step in the right direction for the City of Overland is if the City would really start listening to the residents. On this issue it seems clear that the residents want to elect the next Mayor and they want in done as soon as possible. Whether the city chooses to listen or go its own way will be a clear sign of what we can expect in the road ahead.

If an August election is to happen, the new Council will have to get going on it right away as the cut off date to add something to the August ballot is in May. Any delays could prevent this election from happening. Hopefully, this urgency has been considered and the new Council candidates will be prepared to hit the ground running.

Overland Council Meeting 04/09/07

This article not only reports what happened at the April 9th Council meeting, it also helps bring new readers up to speed on several of the older issues raised there. Regular readers will recognize many of these concepts and explanations. I included the information because our readership has grown dramatically. Unfortunately, this effort to clarify has made this article excessively long. Rest assured, this will not be the norm.

Based on an earlier report by Mike O'Connell, of Channel 4 news, everyone was expecting Mayor Purzner to attend last night's meeting. When she did not, Councilman Jerry May, the Council's current President pro tem, ran the meeting. Though there has been some dispute this last year about there having been a vote for the Council President pro tem, that vote can clearly be seen in the minutes of the May 30, 2006 Council Meeting. With the exception of Mayor Purzner, the Council was in full attendance.

One issue that might be raised from this meeting was how Councilman May, who was filling the role as Mayor, was voting. The confusion is understandable as the Mayor doesn't vote unless there is a tie. Most of the issues addressed by the Council last night came down to a three to three split vote. There would have been less confusion if President pro tem May voted after all of the Council members. However, the bottom line is that there is no real issue here, as President pro tem May would have cast the deciding vote either way.

We still had to deal with some unfinished business from the March 12th, 2007 Council meeting. Though it does not appear that the meeting actually needed to be adjourned again, and business left undone at the last meeting could have been addressed under "Old Business", the end result was that these issues were finally resolved.

The major issue left unresolved was the promotions of 4 police officers that Mayor Purzner approved and later rescinded. As we reported earlier, the City's insurance company attorneys have been advising the City to settle this case as it was "undefendable" in their opinion. One step in settling this suit is to make the promotions permanent. Though labor law entitles the officers to 3 times their back pay as well as their legal fees it is our understanding that they are willing to settle this case for their legal expenses and their back pay without a multiple. We previously covered this issue at length both here and here. This suit has already cost the City over $23000.00 in legal fees. Thankfully, it now appears to be resolved.

Councilman Owensby and Councilman Knode raised concerns with this, saying that handling the promotions in this way was a violation of State Statute. It's disappointing when elected officials openly claim something is a violation of law but do not reference the statute in question. Since it has been argued before that such issues cannot be discussed openly we are going to assume that these Councilmen are referring to the Missouri Sunshine Law.

Several elected officials have taken this position before. There seems to be a simple misunderstanding causing this issue. The purpose of the Missouri Sunshine Law is to require open meetings and public access to information. However, it does provide provisions where closed door meetings (aka executive sessions) can be legally conducted. For a better understanding of the Sunshine Law, the State provides a summary online. To answer the issue raised here you can review the summary, or you can refer to RSMo 610.022 (Closed meetings, procedure and limitation) subsection 4 which states:

4. Nothing in sections 610.010 to 610.028 shall be construed as to require a public governmental body to hold a closed meeting, record or vote to discuss or act upon any matter.

It's clear that there is no requirement to conduct any city business behind closed doors. Reasonable people can disagree on when to conduct business in closed meetings, but there is nothing in the law that requires it.

When the business left over from the March 12th meeting was resolved the Council opened the floor to resident comments. A few comments went too far in my opinion. The Recall was a success and the City will move forward as a result. Now is the time to let go of the past. I would ask all Overland residents to wish Mayor Purzner their best and start focusing on what we need to do in Overland. We cannot let the past hold us back.

Now is the time to welcome the newly elected Council members, not to publicly express disappointment that one or another was not elected. When you support a candidate to represent you they don't always win. When they lose you need to accept that and congratulate the winner. Don't assume the candidate that won will not represent you. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Their actions on the Council may later prove your original assessment correct, but until then, give them a chance, they might surprise you.

The meeting continued with several other issues addressed. Councilman O'Connell made a motion to bring Chuck Boone back to Public Works. The Council voted on this issue and agreed. With Roland Lettner's resignation we need someone to keep the place running for now. Also, the Mayor's handling of Mr. Boone opened up Overland to another lawsuit that returning him to work should allow us to avoid.

Though I have no issue with Mr. Boone personally, the issues residents and businesses have had with Public Works are not new. They existed through at least the last 3 directors and acting directors. I hope Mr. Boone is open to real reform and change in the Public Works department. If not, hopefully the new Council will take up the issue of finding a Public Works director that is.

There are many ideas out there to improve Public Works. Creating a Committee made up of volunteer residents, local business people, and Public Works representatives is one suggestion. The purpose of such a committee would be to examine how Pubic Works does business now and how we can streamline the process, creating a culture of customer service to better serve the community. The Overland Business Association has suggested that they could provide volunteer liaisons to help new businesses navigate the process of coming to Overland. The ideas are out there, what we need is leadership at Public Works to implement them. Hopefully either Mr. Boone is that leader, or his replacement will be.

One interesting turn of events was when it was suggested that the City recontact the East-West Gateway organization to start work on finding a City Administrator. It was surprising because the motion was unanimously approved. Even Councilman Owensby, who had strongly opposed this organization in the past voted for this measure. Hopefully this is a sign that our City Council has a much more reasonable future ahead of it.

There were a few more issues raised. Councilman Owensby and Councilman Knode voiced concerns about the 8801 Page Development that is seeking a Tax Abatement. We covered this issue in an earlier article here. At issue is lack of details and controls in the Redevelopment Plan.

Councilman Knode stated that the owner of this property could grow tomatoes there if he wanted to. Councilman Knode makes a good point as the Redevelopment plan is limited to commercial and industrial uses so agriculture (as well as residential development) would not be possible if the Redevelopment passed. What Councilman Knode seems to have missed is that based on the broad language of the plan, the developer could build a typical shack-like farmers market to sell tomatoes (a commercial enterprise) and Overland would still be obligated to give them the tax abatement for at least 15 years.

The key to this issue is that the plan for this redevelopment has too little information to be approved at this time. There is no reason that this deal could not be passed in the future if the developer puts together a plan with a reasonable level of detail for the Council to consider.

Another issue that was raised was the possibility of contracting for Red Light Cameras. There are several issues with these devices, as we detailed in this article. There have been many problems with Red Light Cameras throughout the country. Research is needed to ensure that the flaws in some of these systems that resulted in numerous lawsuits nationwide will not cause Overland the same problems. If those questions are sufficiently answered Overland could potentially move forward with this system.

Councilman O'Connell pointed out that this system might not be worthwhile for Overland as most of the traffic lights in our area are on roads (Page and Midland for example) that are County controlled. That leaves the Lackland and Woodson intersection as possibly the only place these cameras could be installed.

At the March 26th meeting there were two new officers in attendance seeking Council approval to begin their careers with Overland Police. As that meeting was unable to be conducted due to Mayor Purzner and her supporters on the Council walking out, those officers start with OPD was delayed. Thankfully they were approved by the Council last night. Overland PD is now closer to full manning than it has been for some time.

Another bit of great news came from Overland PD. Chief Herron proudly announced that Detective Ken Robinson was selected as the The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF) Officer of the Month. Great Job! You can read about this award and the reasons for it in an article here. Also, the Chief pointed out that Detective Robinson had completed the difficult process of becoming a Certified Fraud Examiner, on his own time. We have some great professionals on the Overland PD who are fine examples for these new officers to learn from.

Overall the meeting went much smoother than we have seen for some time in Overland. Hopefully this is a sign of good things to come. However, for the City to move forward everyone needs to focus on the road ahead. What happened in the past is over, it is time to see what we can make happen in the future. When I first started this web site I posted the following:

"Remembering the Past

while looking forward to our future."
The Overland Missouri Motto.

Well, if some of our politicians (& their supporters)

do not let go of the past, the the only future

we will have to look forward to is one of ruin.

This has not changed. We should always try learn from the past. However, learning from history and living in it are not the same. We as a community need to let go of grudges and focus on what needs to be done for the good of Overland as a whole. Our future depends on it.

New Council, Old Business

The residents of Overland have had a rough time of it over the last year. Between the storms causing power outages in our neighborhoods, and other storms causing reason outages in our government Overland has had some difficult times. The storms are behind us now. On April 23rd the new Council will take their seats and Overland will get another opportunity to focus on the road ahead. Unfortunately, they have some unfinished business to attend to first.

The first thing the new Council will need to do is decide on how they are going to fill the Mayor's seat. The Council will likely fill the seat temporarily with the president pro-tem. (Currently that would be Councilman May of Ward 1). However, every new Council elects a member to this position so that might change. How the Council will fill the seat permanently has already be a subject of a multitude of rumors. As it stands, if the Council wants to hold an August election for Mayor they are going to have to address this at their first meeting (April 23rd) because the St. Louis County Election Board's cut off date to add items to the August election is in May.

Next the Council has some unfinished business to attend to. The Council needs to pass a budget for 2006/2007. Once passed, the City will be able to get the overdue utility tax rebates out to those who qualify. Those rebates were delayed due to the failure of the previous Council to pass a budget. They also need to decide on whether or not to allow a tax abatement on two different developments (we covered the issues with one of those development plans here).

From there the Council will need to get right to work on drafting and passing a Budget for 2007/2008. The City will also need to work on finding a replacement for Roland Lettner (who resigned this week), as well as several other employees who have left or have given their notice at City Hall.

It will take some time for our Council to catch up on unfinished business and get priority items accomplished. Hopefully they will hit the ground running to try to accomplish these things as soon as possible.

Election Results

According to the following information from the St. Louis County Board of Elections, the Recall of Mayor Ann Purzner succeeded by a nearly 3-1 margin. The final results for the four Council elections in Overland appear to be in as well. Though, earlier reports this evening showed Michael Oakes ahead in Ward 3, It now appears that Peggy Keller has won that election. The results in the other elections have followed the midday & absentee numbers with Eedie Cuminale winning Ward 1, Mary Beth Conlon winning Ward 2 and Tim Jones winning Ward 3.

Turn out was great this year (though it could always be better). There were 4337 votes cast on the Recall issue alone. That is about 1000 votes above the total votes cast in last year's Mayoral election. Thank you all for geting out to vote!

The following are the election results as posted by the St. Louis County Board of Elections (link):

PROPOSITION A - CITY OF OVERLAND
* * RECALL OF MAYOR * *
(VOTE FOR ) 1
(WITH 13 OF 13 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
YES . . . . . . . . . . . 3,167 (73.02%)
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,170 (26.98%)


COUNCILMAN OVERLAND WARD 1
(VOTE FOR ) 1
(WITH 4 OF 4 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
EEDIE CUMINALE. . . . . . . . . 626 (64.21%)
RICH KNODE . . . . . . . . . . 341 (34.97%)
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 8 ( 0.82% )

COUNCILMAN OVERLAND WARD 2
(VOTE FOR ) 1
(WITH 3 OF 3 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
MARY BETH CONLON . . . . . 947 (78.26%)
TOM SELLERS. . . . . . . . . . 258 (21.32%)
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 5 (0.41%)

COUNCILMAN OVERLAND WARD 3
(VOTE FOR ) 1
(WITH 2 OF 2 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
MICHAEL OAKES . . . . . . . . 432 ( 48.16% )
PEGGY KELLER . . . . . . . . . 464 ( 51.73% )
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ( 0.11% )

COUNCILMAN OVERLAND WARD 4
(VOTE FOR ) 1
(WITH 4 OF 4 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
TIM JONES . . . . . . . . . . 907 ( 77.99% )
SHERRY KARR. . . . . . . 254 (21.84% )
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . .2 (0.17%)

We would like to congradulate all the winners this evening. Now that the election is over, the real work can start. We would like to ask the Overland City Council Members, both existing and newly elected (as well as their supporters) to move beyond the past. You cannot see the road ahead of you if you won't take your eyes off the rearview mirror. For Overland to succeed we need to focus on the future

Slander, Libel, The Mayor, and Mailings

We have covered this topic before. However, since some on the internet seem to feel it necessary to bring it up again, we will briefly address this topic again. Slander and Libel are not the same thing, though they are similar. Both involve a Defamation (AKA "defamation of character"). However, Slander is verbal and Libel is in print, broadcast, etc. If you read someone claiming someone else was "slandered" on the internet, realize that this person clearly does not this issue because though you can find information published as print, video, sound or a combination of any of these three mediums, but it is not possible for the Internet to speak to you.

When seeking to sue someone for libel, you have several hurdles to clear. The first is that you must be able to prove the statement was false. If what someone is saying about you is true, regardless of whether you feel wronged by it being published or not, you cannot win a claim of libel, period. Second, you have to prove that it was known to be false and the person or organization published it anyway. Lastly, you have to prove damages (which, if your reputation in the community happens to be horrible in the first place, can be rather difficult to prove).

Another consideration is wording and intent. If someone states something about someone as a matter of fact, when they know it is false, and publishing that information damages the person it is possible to successfully sue for Libel. However, if someone publishes something clearly identifying it as a rumor (for example: "people all over town are saying..."), it will be difficult at best to prove libel as you would have to prove that this rumor did not actually exist and the writer knew it didn't exist.

OK. Now that we've settled that (again), let's take a look at the Mayor's website. There you'll find a long post claiming that the recent article in the Post-Dispatch about her mis-representing herself as a Nurse was false. Apparently Mayor Purzner does not realize that the Post-Dispatch, as well as several other media outlets (including The Overland Examiner) are in possession of a copy of the State Board of Nursing's Investigation into her claims to being a nurse (File # NUI-0502-858/2002-001592) from 2002.

Though I agree this is "old news", it is from the same time frame as the invoice for "jewelry" (actually employee service pins) that Councilman Owensby complained about recently in the Localite (you can read our article about that issue here). It is also far newer than the time frame of the audio tape (that sounds like it might have been edited or even pieced together (though I am no audio expert)) that the Mayor and her supporters like to toss around when making accusations against City Attorney Robert Herman.

We will get into the Nursing issue in a moment. Right now I'd like to address Mayor Purzner continually referring to City Attorney Robert Herman as "unethical". The Mayor even questions why City Attorney Herman changed his mind on having a public hearing on the issue of his ethics and her regular public statements that he is "unethical" Mayor Purzner's website fails to remind you that City Attorney Robert Herman said the reason he does not feel he needs this hearing any longer was because the Missouri Bar's Disciplinary Board had responded to Mayor Purzner's multi-count complaint in a letter back in October 2006 which states in part:

"The Committee has determined there is no probable cause to believe that Robert Herman's Actions involved Professional Misconduct."

I am including links to both pages of this letter for your review. Please note, that they mistakenly refer to Mayor Purzner as the Mayor of Olivette, as well as Mr. Herman as the City Attorney of Olivette. This is a simple mistake, as should be evident since they referred to both the Mayor and Mr. Herman as being of Olivette. The following is a copy of that letter:

.........
page 1............................page 2
(click page to see at full size)

Remembering what we said about what it takes to prove Libel earlier. First, you need to prove the statement is false. Second you need to prove the person publishing it knew it was false. Then you need to show damages. In this case, it appears the Mayor would likely have a difficult time in court trying to fight the first two points. However, considering the Mayor's credibility issues for example:

Around the time he was filing a suit (that he later won) against Mayor Purzner for overstepping her authority when she first tried to remove Police Chief Herron from office without a vote of the City Council (as required by State Statute and Overland Ordinances), St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch was quoted by the Post-Dispatch on May 3rd, 2006 as saying in reference to Mayor Purzner:

"Hopefully the public of Overland will recognize that she is a liar."

and

"My view is that she has Zero Credibility."

With statements like that already in the public eye, it would likely be difficult to prove that enough people would actually believe anything that Mayor Purzner said to such a degree that it would cause Defamation to others, even if it was Libelous.

Now as for that Nurse-Impostor issue. The Mayor really should leave that one alone. As I said before, many local media outlets have a copy of the official investigation into this issue by the Missouri Board of Nursing. Some of the more interesting items in that report are:

The Nursing Board reviewed 7 pieces of campaign literature and 2 newspaper advertisements from the 2002 Mayoral race in which Ann Purzner "repeatedly identified herself as a Registered Nurse without being licensed with the Missouri State Board of Nursing" (page 3, paragraph 6 of the Investigation Report).

For the record, later in the Report, Mark Brown of Mark Brown Printing Company was interviewed and took responsibility for these advertisements. "Mr. Brown advised further that, at no time did MS. Purzner portray herself to him as being a Registered Nurse, nor did she instruct him to identify her as a registered nurse. Mr. Brown stated that he believed Ms. Purzner was a Registered Nurse due to her many years of working at the Overland Medical Center." (Page 7 Paragraph 7 of the Investigation Report). "she [Ms. Purzner] did not view the finished items prior to their being mailed and distributed to the citizens of Overland Missouri." (Page 8 Paragraph 1).

When contacted for an Interview by the Missouri Nursing Board, Ms. Purzner "stated that she was in fact a Registered Nurse licensed in the State of Texas (Page 6, Paragraph 1 ). However, further investigation showed that Ann Purzner was not nor had ever been a Registered Nurse in the State of Texas (Page 6, Paragraph 3+4 )

On June 21st, 2002 Ms. Purzner was interviewed by an Investigator of the Missouri Nursing Board. "Ms. Purzner immediately recanted her original claim of being a licensed Registered Nurse in the State of Texas. MS. Purzner stated that she is not, and never has been a Licensed Registered Nurse." (Page 6, Paragraph 5).

Also there is "At this time MS. Purzner confided that she had lied relative to her holding a degree in nursing" (Page 8, paragraph 9 of the Investigation Report).

The report is extensive (and a matter of public record), and it indicates where the Mayor was repeatedly referred to as a nurse in campaign materials and the like. I would this is old news, accept now the Missouri State Legislature has decided to consider changing the penalty for misrepresenting yourself as Nurse from a misdemeanor to a felony, in part because of the publicity that surrounded the Mayors claims to have been a Nurse. However, I find it odd that Mayor Purzner and others would complain about anything being "old news" when you consider how far in the past they frequently reach to try to discredit their opposition. If they want to change to focus of discussion from the past to the future they should start by not repeatedly reaching back into the past themselves.

As a side note: I find it amusing that after all of Mayor Purzner's and Councilman Knode's comments about videos has been "edited" or not online (which I didn't bother responding to because it was so laughable), they now have a 15 minute EDITED video with unsubstantiated claim in text cut into it from a meeting that lasted much longer (if you include the residents comments it was nearly 1 hour and 20 minutes long). Interestingly enough, we put the ENTIRE meeting up, UNEDITED as soon as we learned the meeting did not aired on Charter Cable (as you can see in this article or by clicking here).

Remember, Tuesday is Election Day and Polls will be open from 6AM to 7PM. You have a choice to make. You can vote for candidates that believe in fiscal responsibility, being accountable to the people, do not regularly insult the intelligence of the public and represent change in Overland. Or you can vote to retain Councilman Knode, Councilman Sellers and Mayor Purzner.

On Monday Be suspicious of last minute mailings you might receive at home. They are designed to hit right before the elections so the opposition will not have time to respond to them. If you do not recognize the name of the person or organization they claim to be from you should think twice before believing the information it contains. If you do recognize the name, call that person or organization to verify the content of the mailing (as fraudulent mailings have happened right before elections in the past here in Overland).

For what it is worth rumor has it that Mark Brown was seen arguing with the postal workers on Friday over ensuring that 3600 or so mailings would be delivered by Monday. As we hear it, the postal workers told him they could not guarantee delivery and he would have to mail them from St. Louis city if he wanted to be sure they arrived on Monday.

Check out a short article from St. Louis Magazine here, and what the Suburban Journal had to say a week ago in their Editorial about the Recall here.