August 27th Hearing and Special Meeting

On August 27th, 2007 the Overland City Council met for a hearing to set the tax levy for the coming year as well as hold a special Council meeting, primarily to swear newly elected Mayor Schneider into office.

There were a few issues raised by people in attendance concerning what should have happened following the swearing in of Mayor Schneider. The first was that they should have named a President Pro Tem of the Council. Actually, we already have one. Councilperson Jerry May of Ward One is the President Pro Tem of the Council. As you can see in City Ordinance 110.240 (you'll need to scroll down to find it) the City Council elects the President Pro Tem of the Council following each year's municipal election. The Council elected Councilperson May to President Pro Tem in April 2007 and the election of a new Mayor has no impact on this. The only way this might have been impacted would have been if Mayor Schneider had been the President Pro Tem prior to being elected Mayor.

Another issue raised was that the Mayor should have re-appointed Linda Downs as the City Clerk (or appointed someone else which would be very unlikely). A look at 115.020 of the Ordinances makes it pretty clear that the City Clerk is "elected by the City Council immediately following the election and installation of a new Mayor". This was an issue we raised following Mayor Purzner's election. Though the ordinance does not distinguish between special or regularly scheduled Council meetings this appears to be nothing more than a simple oversight, which is understandable considering that this has all come about because of Overland's successful mayoral recall, the first one in our County in 25 years, which leads to some uncharted, or at least confusing waters at times. Considering that appointments were not on the agenda for this meeting, even if the Council caught this oversight they could have run afoul of the Sunshine Law if they attempted to add appointments to the agenda. I am sure this will be resolved at the September 10th Council meeting without issue.

During the Tax Levy hearing portion of the meeting Councilperson Peggy Keller of Ward Three took issue with an increase in the personal property tax rate. Last year's residential personal property tax rate was 7.7 cents, which was increasing to 9.7 cents per 100.00 of assessed value. Along with this small increase was a small reduction in the residential real property tax rate from last years 7.5 cents to 6.9 cents per 100.00 of assessed value. The first thing to consider here is that this is only affecting the small municipal portion of our tax bills. The city's portions of our property taxes is one of the smallest items on the list of where the money goes, and that is all this change affects.

To put this in perspective this change would add 22 cents to the personal property tax bill for every $1,000.00 in assessed vehicle value. For example, the county assesses my family's two vehicles at 4,200 combined, meaning this would increase my personal property taxes by a whopping 93 cents (rounded up). The reduction in real property taxes would reduce a homeowner's property taxes by six dollars ($6.00) per 100,000.00 of assessed value. For example, the county assesses my home at 78,300.00 so the decrease in municipal real property taxes would reduce taxes by $4.69 (rounded down). That means this tax "increase" is actually reducing my combined taxes by $3.76. I imagine most homeowners will have similar results. The above examples do not take into account the additional 2.3 cent per 100 reduction of the city police pension real property tax line item.

Councilperson Peggy Keller said at this hearing "Do not raise taxes if you do not need to". While I have to agree with this statement in general I also have to admit that I'm all for future tax "increases" that actually reduce my combined tax burden.

This personal property tax increase will have some impact on local businesses. Commercial interests pay personal property tax on a host of items above and beyond commercially owned vehicles. They pay personal property taxes on store fixtures, computers, and desks just to name a few. However, there is also an 8 cent reduction in Commercial real property taxes (as well as another 8 cent reduction of the commercial real property tax city police pension line item). More Overland businesses lease their business property than own it. As a result, in some cases there will be no accompanying real property tax deduction to negate the impact of this change. However, many commercial leases break down actual expenses (such as taxes, property maintenance, etc) which often adjust to the actual costs. As a result this is likely to only impact a minority of our local businesses and that impact would be minimal when you consider the small dollar amounts involved.

The people who will be most impacted by this change will be the renters in Overland. They don't pay real property taxes directly, but if they own a vehicle, they do pay personal property taxes. I think it is safe to say that the minor reduction in the real property taxes is not likely to result in a surge of rent reductions in town. As a result the average renter will have to foot that $1.00 or so a year without an accompanying savings. However, is this unfair? Renters need the same services that homeowners (police, street repairs, etc), while homeowners pay the bulk of the taxes (as any homeowner can see when writing that significantly larger real property tax check to the county annually). Marginally shifting the burden from real to personal property also marginally shifts the burden more evenly to all residents of Overland in my opinion. Frankly, when we are talking literally about a dollar or two a year, I doubt anyone (other than those seeking a political advantage of some kind) will even notice the difference.

Another issue raised at this meeting was that Councilperson Keller's motion to amend the Tax Levy Ordinance to change the 9.7 cents back to the 7.5 cents per 100.00 on personal property taxes should have passed because the vote went 4 - 3. The key word here is ordinance. This was a vote to amend a proposed ordinance and is subject to the same 5 vote minimum requirement passing an Ordinance has. Whether you want to look at RSMo. 77.080 or Overland Ordinance 110.260 you find the same language:

No ordinance shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall become an ordinance unless on its final passage a majority of the members elected to the City Council shall vote for it, and the "ayes" and "nays" be entered on the journal.

As we have pointed out time and time again here at the Overland Examiner the courts have repeatedly interpreted "majority of the members elected to the City Council" to mean the majority of the the total body, regardless of who might be absent or what seat(s) might be vacant. Since our Council is an 8 member elected body the requirement to do anything with an ordinance is that there be a minimum of 5 votes in favor of it. Once again, this applies to ordinances and not normal business like approving the bills, voting to go into executive session, etc. As a result, the amendment did not pass. However, in the grand scheme of things that really would not have mattered because even if that could have legally passed with only 4 votes, there would not have been 5 to pass the levy. Since both Councilperson O'Connell called for a vote on the amendment again as he wanted to change there vote after hearing the detailed discussion on the tax levy, and Councilperson Jones changed his vote as well ultimately the whole point becomes moot.

At this meeting Mayor Schneider was sworn in and officially took office. We would like to once again congratulate Mayor Schneider on his victory and express our willingness to help and support all efforts with moving the city forward for the betterment of all residents. I am hoping that we will now be able to get the ball rolling on the search for a qualified City Administrator as that would be a huge step in that direction.

There was also a presentation made to Councilperson / President Pro Tem Jerry May for his service in place of the Mayor since April. We would like to thank Councilperson May for his hard work and all his efforts for the City and President Pro Tem. Councilperson May has consistently impressed me over the last several years and his time as "temporary Mayor" only served to solidify that even further for me.

One of the things Mayor Schneider presented to Councilperson May was the gavel. This is a nice gesture that is seen often in many rolls. However, the best part of it came later when Mayor Schneider pulled out a new gavel that was close to the size of a sledge hammer. He said it would only be temporary and that he had made this in shop class when he was a student at Ritenour, giving a nod to his former teacher. It was funny and a nice touch. I assume we'll only see it once though as I imagine they will be replacing the gavel.

Below is the video of the hearing and the meeting in their entirety:

If you are viewing this content through a news-reader
you might not be able to see the video below.




August 27th Overland
Special Council Meeting
and Tax Levy Hearing
( 33 minutes )

Comments are enabled on this article

August 13th, 2007 Overland Council Meeting

Well this was an interesting meeting. I suspected a move to add the swearing in ceremony to this meeting as the mayoral election results were certified Monday. However that didn't happen (and I have since learned, thanks to discussions on OVCC, that it would have likely been in violation of the Sunshine Law if they had done so). Apparently, they plan to add the swearing in Ceremony to a meeting scheduled for August 27th, 2007 to address property taxes.

By far the most interesting items on the agenda were two ordinances proposing changes to the police and the non-uniform pensions. First, they were interesting because no one seemed to know where they came from or what they were about. Several on the Council expressed concerns about there being no discussion about these items prior to being asked to vote on ordinances to enact them.

One was to eliminate the mandatory retirement age of 65 from the police pension. The argument has been made that this is discriminatory and could open Overland up to a lawsuit. However, a review of the EEOC Compliance Manual, specifically the "threshold issues" section, suggests that this is not exactly the case. There is an exemption when it comes to age discrimination in regard to firefighters and police officers (direct link).

While I am no lawyer and so I am not sure why these specific dates are important, this concern could apparently be easily resolved by simply repealing the current requirement and passing the same requirement directly after the repeal. For whatever reason, EEOC exempts 65 year old mandatory retirement requirements for firefighters and police officers so long as the requirement is put into effect after September 30th, 1996 (which it certainly would be if done now or in the future). While I have the utmost respect for our police officers, and I thank them for the job they do for us, I don't think it's advisable to have someone older than 65 bearing those responsibilities, many of which can become intensely physical at the drop of a hat. I also can't fathom why any officer would want to continue dealing with the unsavory characters they encounter daily after age 65. Our officers have a great pension that they definitely earn. They should retire when they still have years ahead of them to enjoy it.

The other was not so clearly referenced at the meeting. It's my understanding that this was a change for the non-uniform pension involving spousal benefits that made this option automatic rather than something the employees have to select. However, considering how only half of the story about the mandatory retirement issue has been told, I'm not sure if the entire story has been told about this provision either.

Thankfully, the Council agreed (voting 7 to 1 with only Councilman Tim Jones (Ward 4) dissenting) to table these issues and hold a workshop meeting where they could be considered at length. Hopefully this will also give the two Pension Boards an opportunity to add their input as well. Though it was said at the meeting that this is what the pension boards wanted it is my understanding that this may not be the case at least with the police pension board. Hopefully, all of this will be ironed out, and these issues can be resolved in the best interest of the city in the near future. Some other changes to the pensions that have been suggested recently do not have the support of the actuaries. We'll have to wait and see where they stand on these particular issues as well (I hope the rumors that some at city hall want to change actuaries because of these opinions are false).

Interestingly, City Attorney Robert Herman was apparently surprised by these ordinances as well. He didn't draft them, and I got the impression he was not involved in any discussions about them either. Who drafted them is still a mystery. So far, the only answer given has been "they" instructed that these items be added to the agenda. So much for open government.

As if to keep with the theme of "so much for open government", even though this is the only regularly scheduled Council meeting for the month of August, neither Chief Herron nor Acting Public Works Director Chuck Boone had anything to report to the Council. I found this odd since they always seem to have things to report at length. You would think, Chuck Boone would want to at least pat the street department folks on the back for their hard work in this blistering heat, and that the Chief might at minimum want to pass along a few heat related safety tips to the public as well as the recent arrests involving an armed robbery at PX liquor.

Once again, even though there was no Chief's report, Councilman Owensby decided to raise several questions. One involved a suggestion for camera systems that would have been more appropriate to raise during New Business. Another involved a possible lawsuit which should probably be left to executive session until it's resolved. One issue he brought up involved a Police Officer we recently wrote about here. Unfortunately it is my understanding that the Police Department terminated this officer because of his poor health. He had 17 years on the force and was only 3 years away from being able to retire and receive his full pension. There does not seem to be a disability provision in the police pension for health issues. That is definitely one thing that should be discussed at a workshop meeting about the pensions in my opinion. The non-unformed pension (for city employees other than the police) apparently has such a provision. While I realize those employees have difficult jobs and work hard for our city, our police, whose work is incredibly stressful, taxing and thus detrimental to health, don't have such protection and that seems a bit absurd to me.

Hopefully most if not all of these issues will be addressed at the future workshop meeting. I hope the Council will seek to include input from the pension boards, the actuaries, and the employees (preferably through a secret ballot or something similar so the employees and officers can answer freely). We need to ensure that we properly balance the needs of the city, the needs of the employees and officers, as well as what is fiscally sound. There are also potential legal ramifications to consider such as what happened in San Diego, California.

Another issue that came up was an ordinance to adjust bidding requirements to require that only "responsible contractors" be considered. This ordinance was exceptionally detailed and rather than try to go into it at length I will try to get a copy from city hall and add it here as soon as possible. The basic concept seemed to be that contractors had to provide benefits to their employees, pay prevailing wage, not have been barred, disqualified, fired, etc by any local, state of federal agency, have proper licensing, insurance, etc in order to be considered when bidding city projects.

Under old business, Councilperson Conlon again asked the Council about moving forward with finding a City Administrator through the East - West Gateway Council. President Pro Tem May stated that he had been advised to wait until the our new Mayor took office so that the process could move forward without issue. That's assuming Mayor Schneider chooses to do so (which I hope he does).

The remainder of the meeting was standard fair. Ordinances were passed to make it illegal to leash dogs in front yards, change parking regulations on Millet, and add stop signs to Meadowbrook at S. Milton and the Driver and Bryant intersection. Other than that it was business as usual. Several new businesses and liquor licenses moved forward, Councilman Owensby questioned the bills, minutes were passed with only a few issues raised and resolved, etc.

You can review our video of the entire August 13th Council Meeting below. I apologize if you have difficulty with the sound, as the sound system seemed a bit off at this meeting.

If you are viewing this content through a news-reader
you might not be able to see the video below.


August 13th Overland Council Meeting
( 1 hour 5 minutes )

Comments are enabled on this article

2007 Mayoral Election Results

The County Just announced the unofficial results:

Out of 3170 votes cast:

• Conlon:................1298
• Keller:..................319
• Schneider:............1548
• Write-In:..................5

Link to the results

Based on the unofficial results it appears that Councilperson Schneider will be the next Mayor of Overland. We would like to congratulate Mr. Schneider, and wish him the best of luck in his new position. Hopefully, all sides will be able to come together and focus on the future of Overland.

Considering that there were only 2 elected offices and a handful of ballot issues throughout St. Louis County on this ballot it is possible that the election result could be certified before the end of this week. That means that Mr. Schneider might be sworn into the office of Mayor as early as the August 13th, 2007 City Council meeting.

Mayoral Election Update

With the polls now closed the last unofficial count we had was 3001 votes cast between the seven polling places. With absentee votes included that gives us a rough count of 3265 vote cast.

The big turnout winner of the day was Wyland School with approximately 565 votes cast there alone.

In the April 2007 election we had 10,049 registered voters. That would make this a turnout of approximately 30% (32% with the absentee ballots counted). Not too bad considering this was a municipal only, one ballot item, special election on a blazing hot day.

Now we just have to wait and see what the results are.

Overland's Mayoral Election Update

I've been running around the polls checking numbers and making sure everyone has enough water and ice. Everyone has been trying to look out for each other which is great as heat stroke is not partisan. So far all is well though the turnout is a bit slow. As of 1:00PM the rough count of votes cast was about 1568. That's a bit slower than usual for Overland but people maybe waiting for the sun to go down to vote. There were 264 absentee ballots cast which brings that number over 1800 votes for this election so far.

Turn out is important, not only for representation of all the residents but also for the image of Overland, so if you have yet to vote, get out and do it now. If you need transportation contact the candidates (Candidate contact information can be found here), don't neglect your right and responsibility today.

Editorial: Overland's Mayoral Election 2007

While I have made every effort to provide information about all the candidates without bias or prejudice (including our previous article which contains a host of information about them) I am not without an opinion of my own when it comes to the upcoming mayoral election. The following editorial is that opinion, and (as you might expect) it is a long one so be prepared.

Here at the Overland Examiner we have tried made all the information about the candidates available to our readers that we could. Ultimately it is up to you to review that information and determine how you wish to cast your vote. The following is simply the reasoning behind my own decision.

As I have said before, there are three clear choices in this election.

First there is Councilperson Keller. Having been on the City Council for a few short months and having no experience beyond that in public office or managing matters of policy, she is the least qualified of the candidates. Since she did not attend either of the candidate events held in Overland, she has not held a “get to know the candidate” type forum for the public that we are aware of, and she has put very little information out for voters to review, it appears she is not at all serious about winning this election in my opinion.

Of the little bit of information Councilperson Keller has put out, the flier that was recently left on my door speaks volumes. In that flier Councilperson Keller points out that she had proposed a ballot measure for the residents to vote on selling the Seminary property at Wild Acres and that it was voted down by the majority of the Council. She says "Your right to vote was taken away", a line former Councilperson Knode frequently chose to use inaccurately as well (which is one of the reasons he is now a "former Councilperson" in my opinion).

She did not include in that flier that at the same meeting she was asked by one of the council members if she had ever seen the inside of the buildings (which she could have done while they were conducting tours of the building as recently as the Discover Overland Event on June 9th), if she had ever talked to the Friends of Wild Acres about the buildings, or if she had ever communicated with any of the residents or businesses who are currently exploring plans and proposals for that property. Her answer was “it’s not about me”. Based on that answer, and considering the fact that earlier at that same meeting the current president of the Friends of Wild Acres had challenged her on this as well it appears clear that the actual answers would have clearly been no (if she had chosen not to evade the questions). This begs the question, how can you pass judgment on something when you have made no effort to examine the various options?

Her flier goes on to say that the Council will be spending over $200,000.00 on those buildings “that have never been inspected”. They most certainly have been inspected, numerous times for that matter. They were inspected by the Fire Marshal multiple times in order to get the OK to hold the various resident tours that we've had over the last several years. They have also been inspected repeatedly by our Public Works Department and by St. Louis County as well. Secondly, as a Councilperson she should be well aware of the offer currently being negotiated between the City of Overland and the insurance company that covers those buildings. The insurance company has offered well over that $200,000.00 to cover the damages from when the furnace that went out resulting in frozen pipes that later ruptured and flooded the building. Her flier suggests the Council is spending taxpayer money on the buildings when in fact, it will be mostly money from the insurance company, given specifically for those repairs.

She complains in the flier that the Council wants to spend $25,000.00 to have an architectural firm evaluate the property. She says earlier in it that the city has no plan for these buildings, and then she complains about bringing in professionals to help develop a new plan. I say a “new” plan because there IS an existing plan at City hall that was drawn up for those buildings back when Mayor Dody was in office.

Originally, the City was considering making the property the new municipal complex / City Hall which seemed reasonable in conjunction with the move to annex West Overland (the seminary Property would be very close to the center of the city if the annexation was successful). When the Annexation fell through, the City Hall move fell through as well. However, there is a detailed plan laying out what it would take to bring the buildings back into good repair and up to modern code. All we need is a review of the current status of the buildings (after more years of neglect) to update that plan. That updated plan could possibly be made publicly available which would help companies and individuals interested in doing something with this property work out their plans and proposals.

While I sympathize with the frustration of owning these buildings and not moving forward with them I think it is a bit ridiculous to try to abandon them right when we are finally starting to try to make something happen with the property (and we have the majority support of the City Council to do it).

Based on what little we have seen from her, it's my opinion that a vote for Councilperson Keller is a vote for a lack of vision, an unwillingness to research, and the same misinformation tactics we just recalled from office.

The next choice is Councilman Schneider. Councilman Schneider has been on the City Council for 16 months or so, though 12 of those months were as a member of a dysfunctional government that could not accomplish anything, so his experience as to how the city is actually supposed to be run is still a bit limited. While I appreciate Councilman Schneider’s efforts to stand with the Council majority and prevent former Mayor Purzner and others from doing even more damage to the city of Overland, I have concerns as well.

At the May 14th Council Meeting, the President of the Friends of Wild Acres asked the Council why nothing had yet been done to repair the leaks in the Seminary Property roof. Councilperson Schneider answered, stating that they hadn’t appropriated any funds for the repairs and that hopefully they would do that this year. However, back in August of 2006 the Capital Improvements budget was passed by the Council unanimously. Included in that budget was a $45,000.00 line item for repairs of those buildings. As a member of the Council at that time (not to mention a member of the Budget Committee) and someone who voted on that budget Councilperson Schneider should have known about this. As the Chairman of the Parks Committee at the time he should have worked to implement it. Councilperson Schneider failed to move forward on using those funds when they were approved and the Seminary property at Wild Acres continued to deteriorate as a result (you can see a video clip of this for yourself by clicking here).

As many of you know, I had been looking into a "Neighbor helping Neighbor" program for our area over the past six months or so. There were numerous issues with such a program, the worst of which was the high costs of insuring such and effort. Then I learned about St. Louis County's "County Older Residents Programs (CORP)". To me this was the perfect solution. They have programs to cover all of the things I was hoping to address and those programs are professionally managed. They are also insured and funded by the County. This program has run successfully for over 30 years. When I met with people there they told me they are very interested in getting more involved in the Overland area. When Councilperson Schneider first started talking about his “Ward Warriors” I told him about my research and about CORP. However, he seemed determined to create his own version of the program. Reinventing the wheel like this is completely unnecessary. Taking on this mountain of potential legal liability for the City (and ultimately the taxpayers) is a risk that is pointless to take when the County already has an operation in place if your motivation is to help people rather than to be able to say "I created this".

Throughout this Campaign (as you can see in the various videos linked to in our previous article) Councilman Schneider has suggested things that seem odd. Parking a dump truck in from of someone’s home as a solution to the problem of suspected illegal aliens having too many people living there is one such suggestion (what a dump truck would accomplish is beyond me). Another is the suggestion that we use money from the City Beautification fund to “clean up the place” and let people put brush on the street for the city to pick up instead of what the Beautification fund was created for which was to improve our right of ways and parks as stipulated in the ballot language which you can found in City Ordinance #2005-44:

"Shall the City of Overland, Missouri, collect an annual license tax of two percent (2%) on all gross annual revenues produced by outdoor advertising structures (commonly referred to as off-premise billboards) in the City of Overland, Missouri, such revenues to be used for the beautification of public rights-of-way and other properties in the City of Overland?"

There is Councilperson Schneider's frequently stated suggestion that the Ordinance governing the City Administrator position makes that position “too powerful”. However, ultimately the City Administrator can't do anything without the approval of the Mayor and the City Council as is clearly stated in that Ordinance (specifically section 115.520):

“The City Administrator shall be responsible for the administration and management of the governmental business, officers and employees and activities of the City subject to the direction and supervision of the Mayor and the City Council".

Then there is the issue of the legal action against Councilperson Schneider over his candidacy. At issue was the fact that he had received a waiver from the St. Louis County Department of Revenue for his 2006 personal property taxes. The notations in that department’s computer files said that he had not moved here in February 2006. This raised the reasonable question that if he had not lived here before that time, how could he be qualified to run for an office in August 2007 when one of the requirements is that a candidate has to have been an Overland resident for 2 or more years? Alternately, the suit asked that if he actually did live here long enough to qualify to run for that office (which both sides stipulated to at the beginning of the court hearing), how could he do so if he did not pay his personal property taxes for the 2006 tax year when state statute 115.346 forbids candidates from running if the are in arrears on their taxes?

It has been spun by many that this case was a "frivolous lawsuit" and that Councilperson Schneider did nothing wrong. However, that is not how the ruling went. The Judge ruled that since the County Department of Revenue would not have considered Councilperson Schneider to be in arrears on May 22nd, 2007 (the last day you could have filed to run for Mayor in this election), even though they did have to pay those taxes, he did not have to come off the ballot. RSMo. 115.346 states:

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, no person shall be certified as a candidate for a municipal office, nor shall such person's name appear on the ballot as a candidate for such office, who shall be in arrears for any unpaid city taxes or municipal user fees on the last day to file a declaration of candidacy for the office.”

As a result of a waiver being improperly issued and not being caught by the Department of Revenue before May 22nd, Councilperson Schneider was able to remain on the ballot due to a legal technicality. Far from being exonerated he had to pay those taxes. Also, waivers are not issued unless they are requested. Lets be clear, you DO NOT get a tax waiver unless you ask for one. To have been issued a waiver for that year someone would have had to tell DOR that either Councilman Schneider had not lived in county prior to Jan 1st 2006, or that they did not own the vehicle at that time. Since the ownership records for that vehicle listed him by name as a joint owner along with his former company, and the Schneider family has lived in the house on Chaucer since early 2005 it seems reasonable to conclude that someone made an erroneous, if not outright false, statement to the Department of Revenue in order to secure that waiver that was later rescinded as a result of this suit. You can review the decision of the court for yourself here (first made available online at the OVCC blog by SuzyJax) and you can even see the entire transcript of the hearing here (first made available online at Mary Beth Conlon's website).

Then there are the big names supporting Councilperson Schneider. There are former Mayors, Council members, and appointees as well as a host of politicos and wanna-be politicos from Overland’s past (from both of the two largest sides in Overland politics). Councilperson Schneider’s slogan is “Different enough to make a difference”, yet his closest advisors and supporters are the people who have been in charge of Overland (on the dais or in the back-rooms) going back decades. The policies of the past have led us to our current position of flat revenues, increasing expenses, and vacant business properties all over the city. Do we really want to continue with them or their authors?

While there are an enormous amount of grant opportunities and the like out there that, with proper planning, could help Overland build a brighter future, Councilperson Schneider doesn’t appear to take those opportunities seriously when you consider his “Grant Fairy” comment at the LWV Candidates Forum. Why anyone would belittle such opportunities is beyond me.

Finally, when you review the information that Councilperson Schneider has put out to the public on what he wants to do for Overland, you find an extreme lack of details. There are a lot of promises that include everything that just about anyone wants to hear, but there are no detailed explanations on how this would be accomplished. A review of Councilman Schneider’s website finds that there isn’t even a platform or a list of ideas to be found as of today. The closest we come is a question and answer post. Even in that we find a lack of understanding of public policy and the law. Councilperson Schneider has said repeatedly that he wants to see Overland run more like a business. However, no successful business executive will commit time, money or resources to an idea without detailed plans and projects that they can first analyze. Though he says he wants to see Overland run more like a business, based on what little detail he has provided to us it appears Mr. Schneider doesn't want the voters to act like business people.

One of the questions that appear on his website asks how to deal with a problem concerning a neighbor’s 5 outside cats. Mr. Schneider’s response failed to even mention that you cannot legally have more than 2 outside pets in the City of Overland.

Another deals with a skateboard park which Councilman Schneider seems to support in his answer. Where this would go or how the city could manage the massive legal risks it would create remains a mystery. The Skateboard park issue was brought up several years ago by then Councilperson Purzner. At that time the City’s insurance company stated they would not cover it unless the city had absolutely nothing to do with it directly. The City couldn’t build it, maintain it, or supervise it in any way if they wanted the insurance company to cover it (what they would be covering at that point I don't know). Until a private concern approaches the city about building such a facility we either cannot move forward, or we have to figure out how to budget for the massive insurance costs covering it would bring, assuming we could find a company that would cover it at all.

Though I happen to like Councilperson Schneider and have always enjoyed talking with him it is my opinion that a vote for him is a vote for the same old politics and policies of the past that gave us the problems Overland has today and yet another politician who won’t take responsibility for their mistakes or invest time into fully researching how current laws and policies relate to our problems and their possible solutions. How is Overland supposed to move forward if we don't look before we leap?

Lastly, there is Councilperson Conlon. Councilperson Conlon served on the City Council from 2004-2006. She narrowly lost her run for Mayor in 2006 and she successfully ran to return to the Council in 2007. In her time on the Council, Conlon authored numerous successful ballot measures designed to improve Overland, including holding absentee owners accountable for derelict properties and the creation of the city's beautification fund, just to name a few. While on the Council she successfully advocated for spending reductions, creating the position of a city administrator as well as using an independent agency to recruit candidates to fill that position (to avoid having it become yet another political patronage job at City Hall like the recent changes at Overland's Public Works Department). Councilperson Conlon’s education in public policy administration has given her the tools we need to successfully find and implement solutions to Overland’s problems. At her candidate forums, Councilperson Conlon not only explained what she wanted to do, but how it could be done using various programs, grants and other opportunities. There is no absence of “how” with her.

The old guard politicians of both camps are opposing her. Her supporters are Overland residents, young, old and in-between, many of whom have been actively trying to improve our community (or just their block) for years. Those seeking to parlay their support into some sort of personal gain have chosen to back one of the other candidates.

When talking to her detractors, there are a few common complaints. The first is that she filed last to run for Mayor in 2006 and the resulting split vote gave us Mayor Purzner. However, these same people are supporting Councilperson Schneider, who filed last in this election which could result in a similar split vote result. The hypocrisy of this is ridiculous to me. What no one is considering is that there is a certain statistical math to filing as a candidate. Ultimately it is best to be listed first, but if you can't be first, then it is next best to be listed last. It has also been said that Councilperson Schneider was saying he wanted to run back in October of 2006 as if to suggest he was talking about it first. However, I knew (as I am sure many of you did) that Councilperson Conlon intended to run again for Mayor shortly after the recount of the April 2006 election.

Her detractors claim that she didn’t meet with them when asked. The intent of those meetings was to get one of the two "good" candidates to back out of the race. While there were various reasons why these different meetings didn’t happen, ultimately it was obvious that neither candidate had any intention of backing out so what was the point? Also, am I the only one the questions the “back-room” appearance of such meetings?

There are those that simply do not like her. Personality conflicts happen and there is rarely a solution for them, but to base your vote on whom you like personally over the person you know has the ability to do a better job seems a bit foolish to me.

The recent legal action I mentioned above is also a reason some have chosen not to support Councilperson Conlon. While I took issue with her not contacting Councilperson Schneider about this before filing the suit as well, ultimately the suit was valid. Councilperson Schneider clearly won that suit purely on a technicality, nothing more. To have that suit referred to as a “frivolous lawsuit” or a “dirty trick” is ridiculous as all that suit did was ask the court to ensure that election law was properly followed. Ultimately, Councilperson Schneider had to pay the unpaid taxes in question, so obviously the facts of the case were accurate. The judge’s strict interpretation of the statute’s wording is the only reason that Mr. Schneider was able to remain on the ballot.

Mary Beth Conlon has articulated her vision to us clearly. She has told us what she wants to do and how she will go about making those things happen. She has not pulled punches or answered every question blindly with a yes just for the sake of a vote. If you ask Councilperson Conlon a straight question, you get a straight answer that she either backs up with facts or asks to get back to you after she researches the issue. If you don’t believe me call her and ask your own questions.

Marybeth Conlon’s website has real information on it including her platform which gives an overview of what she wants to accomplish for Overland as our Mayor. At her forum events she's given us detailed information about her ideas including what stumbling blocks exist and how they can best be overcome.

In my opinion a vote for Councilperson Conlon is a vote for a clearly defined new direction for Overland that isn't weighed down with the politics of the past.

As I have said before, this Mayoral election is critical to the future of Overland as it will set the tone for things to come and there are three clear choices for the voters. A vote for Councilperson Keller is a vote for a lack of vision, the misinformation tactics most of us despise and a lack of interest in properly researching the various issues facing Overland. A vote for Councilperson Schneider is a vote for the same old politics of the past that have failed us time and again, ideas without substance, and a whole new series of legal risks for the City (and ultimately the taxpayers). A vote for Councilperson Conlon is a vote for a clear vision of a brighter future for Overland and a detailed road map showing us how to get there without back-room political debts.

The choice in this election is obvious to me. That is why I will be voting for Conlon on August 7th, 2007. In my opinion she is the only choice for a new, brighter direction in Overland.

Comments ARE enabled on this article so fire away,
we welcome the opportunity for a good discussion/debate
on this critical Mayoral Election if anyone is up for the challenge.

Mayoral Election August 7th 2007

On August 7th, 2007 there will be a Mayoral election for the registered voters of Overland to select the candidate they want to replace former Mayor Ann Purzner (who was recalled from office back in April 2007 by a nearly 3 to 1 margin). This election is critical for residents of Overland Missouri as it will determine our community's future direction. There are 3 clear choices in this race and the choice the majority makes will set the tone for what is to come.

We would like to urge everyone to who can to vote on August 7th (polls will be open from 6:00AM to 7:00PM). If you have difficulty getting to the polls please contact the candidate of your choice as they will likely have volunteers available to get you to the polls. For those who are registered but have not voted in a municipal election in awhile (if at all) you can find a host of information at the St. Louis County Board of Elections website. Specifically you can find your polling place, learn about how the new voting machines work, and later you should be able to find the election results on their site as well.

If you're looking for information on the candidates there is a host of it out there. You can see videos from the "meet the candidate" style forums both Councilpersons Schneider and Conlon held earlier this year (May forums are here and June forums are here). You can also see the video of the League of Women Voters Candidate Forum as well as the Overland Business Associations Question and Answer event as well. Both Councilpersons Conlon and Schneider have campaign websites (Schneider's here and Conlon's here) where they provide information for voters. Lastly, you can visit our Candidates list article where you'll find various ways to contact all three candidates (candidates are listed in that article in the order they will appear on the ballot).

We wish we could have provided more information about Councilperson Keller, however she she does not have a website, she either did not hold any forum style events or she did not notify us of them, and she did not attend either of the above candidate events.

There are also the financial filings for the candidates that are publicly available. Thanks to Suzyjax at the OVCC Blog we all have easy access to these documents for both Councilpersons Schneider and Conlon. Councilperson Keller did not submit any financial filings so unfortunately we cannot provide that information for you here. The filings that are available can be seen here:

• Conlon's first filing
• Schneider's first filing
• Conlon's latest filing
• Schneider's latest filing

There is plenty of information to review about most of the candidates. Please feel free to review this information as well as share it with others who are interested in learning more about those seeking to lead our City into the future.

UPDATED: Patronage Parade comes to Overland!

Overland's Chief of Police James Herron has apparently issued a permit for the Schneider Campaign to hold parade that will cover over 40 streets in Overland on Sunday, August 5th, 2007. The parade will start at Ortmann's funeral home at 12:30PM and, considering the extensive route, it will likely take most of the afternoon to complete. As a result residents may want to reschedule any plans they might have had with their families Sunday afternoon as getting across Overland will likely be difficult.

Interestingly, though I assume Councilperson Schneider was aware of this event, apparently none of the other Council members, nor President Pro Tem Jerry May were consulted or even told about it. The Chief of Police does have the authority to issue such a permit (according to Overland Ordinances Section 340.050), but you would think he would have consulted with at least the President Pro Tem, if not the entire Council before approving an event that would disrupt Overland to this degree (let alone the political problems it will surely create).

What concerns me (and should concern all the citizens of Overland in my opinion) is the number of Police Officers that will be needed for an event of this size. With such an extensive route, that criss-crosses a number of main thoroughfares in town, it is likely going to take more police officers and vehicles than just a front and back patrol car keep this event safe.


This event raises several questions:

• Who is paying for the wages of these police officers?
• Who is paying for the fuel used by the police vehicles?
• Will the officers be on overtime?
(or will police protection for the rest of the city suffer?)

It has also come to my attention that some time ago the Overland Business Association wanted to hold a parade through Overland and apparently Chief Herron opposed it because of the manpower and expense it would have required. That parade was no where near as extensive as the one the Schneider campaign will be holding on Sunday, nor was it's potential benefits limited to only one political faction in town.


UPDATE (7/05 2:30PM):

Well the rather disappointing Schneider parade just wandered through Overland. 20 or so cars were involved and the parade was seen all over town. The non-stop blaring car horns announced their arrival wherever they went. It appears Councilperson Schneider is not aware of Overland Ordinances Section 380.140, subsection A which states:

Signaling Devices. Every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a horn, directed forward, or whistle in good working order, capable of emitting a sound adequate in quantity and volume to give warning of the approach of such vehicle to other users of the highway and to pedestrians. Such signaling device shall be used for warning purposes only and shall not be used for making any unnecessary noise, and no other sound-producing signaling device shall be used at any time.

I wonder if the officers tasked with traffic control for this parade (rather than patrolling and protecting the city) were allowed to issue citations for the excessive number of violations of this ordinance? I also feel bad for the officers as I imagine this sort of duty was not what they had in mind when they joined the Overland Police force.

According to one resident who contacted Chief Herron, the wages of the officer(s) involved and the fuel used in their vehicle(s) will be handled out of the normal police budget. I will try to contact Chief Herron on Monday to verify this, though he is welcome to contact me himself anytime.

I only saw one police car involved in this event when they went by me, however these expenses should clearly be paid by the Schneider Campaign and not the residents of Overland. I hope the City Council, now that they are aware of this event, will ensure that this happens. City revenues should never be used to fund a political event like this parade no matter how little the cost is. If you do not wish to see City revenues used to pay for these expenses Contact your City Council representatives as well as the Missouri Ethics Commission (link).