A change to the Crestwood Charter? Why would we do that?
Folks, have a look at the minutes of the Charter commission reference a change to our Charter (click on the header.)
This instrument has served us very well since it's inception, and I see no reason to change it now. Before you know it November will be upon us, and we will be asked to vote to change our Charter.
Let's look at this idea foe a minute. First of all the commission was appointed earlier than the Charter calls for, second the "changes" seem to be un-necessary, as what the commission calls for can be accomplished with the Charter we now have.
Think of our Charter as the constitution of the United States, would we be willing to change that after it has worked so well for all these years? I think not! If you read these changes that the commission wants us to make, you will see they benefit one political faction in town, and not Crestwood as a whole.
I am dead set against these needless changes! May we please hear from you on this very important issue? And, please let's keep the name calling out of this topic as it's way too important to be childish with. I don't care who set up what, or who this is aimed at, I only care that as many of our residents understand this as possible before November.
Tom Ford
No.226
This instrument has served us very well since it's inception, and I see no reason to change it now. Before you know it November will be upon us, and we will be asked to vote to change our Charter.
Let's look at this idea foe a minute. First of all the commission was appointed earlier than the Charter calls for, second the "changes" seem to be un-necessary, as what the commission calls for can be accomplished with the Charter we now have.
Think of our Charter as the constitution of the United States, would we be willing to change that after it has worked so well for all these years? I think not! If you read these changes that the commission wants us to make, you will see they benefit one political faction in town, and not Crestwood as a whole.
I am dead set against these needless changes! May we please hear from you on this very important issue? And, please let's keep the name calling out of this topic as it's way too important to be childish with. I don't care who set up what, or who this is aimed at, I only care that as many of our residents understand this as possible before November.
Tom Ford
No.226
posted by Crestwood Independent at 10:39
73 Comments:
Has the city or the charter commission prepared any information for the voters?
Yes, the city finally prepared a document which can be accessed on the city's website or picked up at City Hall. There is still no information on how the city plans to inform those voters who do not go to City Hall or visit the city's website.
The city's tardiness in putting together information for the voters might have been excusable had the proposed amendments just been passed, but these Charter issues were approved by the board over a year ago.
Martha Duchild
I do not believe we should pass any of the proposed new Charter Amendments. Let's face it, the changes that have been requested only benefit a select few and isn't it ironic how politically slanted the new proposals are???
I for one would never want to see any politician in office forever but with no term limits, that could happen.
All the talk about wanting to save the city money. So in November we are going to have a chance to change our Charter. What percentage of citizens do you think even understand what these changes are? After reading the brochure put out by the city, these changes are absolutely not needed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can't find one thing in the changes that has happened at all within the past ten years. I know one of our alderman who wants these changes, I can only wonder why.
The ballot language for the Charter vote:
Propositions 4 & 5
Propositions 4 & 5 propose changes in the number of signatures necessary for petitions
for Referendum and Initiative petitions {Sec. 9.3(a)} and Recall petitions {Sec. 10.3(a) }.
The proposed changes reduce these percentages.
Proposition 4: Shall Section 9.3(a) of the City’s Charter be amended to
reduce the percentage of signatures required for Initiative and
Referendum petitions from twelve percent (12%) to eight percent (8%)?
Proposition 5: Shall Section 10.3(a) of the City’s Charter be amended to
reduce the percentage of signatures required for a Recall petition from
twenty percent (20%) to fifteen percent (15%)?
Section 13.7, “Charter Amendment”, is not proposed to change. That petition
percentage will remain at ten percent (10%) as set in the original Charter.
Summary of the Percentage Change Issue
The Charter Review Committee recommends that the percentages for the number of
signatures necessary for petitions for Referendum and Initiative petitions {Sec. 9.3(a)}
and Recall petitions {Sec. 10.3(a)} be reduced.
The reasons that reductions of the percentages are being recommended are:
1) Crestwood’s current percentages are more restrictive than those in other cities.
2) The percentages for these two sections seemed significantly higher than those
required for a petition to amend the Charter itself.
3) The percentages are set by “all” registered voters. The percentage of those who
vote is significantly lower than those who are registered to vote. Lower
percentages of “all” registered voters would more accurately relate to the number
of those who regularly participate in political issues and vote.
INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED
CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO BE PUT BEFORE
CRESTWOOD VOTERS ON
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Propositions 4 & 5
Propositions 4 & 5 propose changes in the number of signatures necessary for petitions
for Referendum and Initiative petitions {Sec. 9.3(a)} and Recall petitions {Sec. 10.3(a) }.
The proposed changes reduce these percentages.
Proposition 4: Shall Section 9.3(a) of the City’s Charter be amended to
reduce the percentage of signatures required for Initiative and
Referendum petitions from twelve percent (12%) to eight percent (8%)?
Proposition 5: Shall Section 10.3(a) of the City’s Charter be amended to
reduce the percentage of signatures required for a Recall petition from
twenty percent (20%) to fifteen percent (15%)?
Section 13.7, “Charter Amendment”, is not proposed to change. That petition
percentage will remain at ten percent (10%) as set in the original Charter.
Summary of the Percentage Change Issue
The Charter Review Committee recommends that the percentages for the number of
signatures necessary for petitions for Referendum and Initiative petitions {Sec. 9.3(a)}
and Recall petitions {Sec. 10.3(a)} be reduced.
The reasons that reductions of the percentages are being recommended are:
1) Crestwood’s current percentages are more restrictive than those in other cities.
2) The percentages for these two sections seemed significantly higher than those
required for a petition to amend the Charter itself.
3) The percentages are set by “all” registered voters. The percentage of those who
vote is significantly lower than those who are registered to vote. Lower
percentages of “all” registered voters would more accurately relate to the number
of those who regularly participate in political issues and vote.
INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED
CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO BE PUT BEFORE
CRESTWOOD VOTERS ON
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
What does all that leaglese nonsense mean to you, and I?
Simple, VOTE "NO" ON THE ENTIRE IDIOTIC IDEA!
Tom Ford
Since these ordinances were prepared so long ago, what is Kim Cottle's excuse for her tardiness in postinig them on the website and making them available at city hall? Last time I checked, she was an employee of the city and her salary is paid by voters.
I will be waiting to hear a response as until then, she is derelict in her duty and we need to know WHY.
What exactly is the wheel that won't turn up there??? If the job is too big, get a smaller job.
Residents are very tired of the excuses for lack of performance. Even worse, when politics sticks its head inside the issue.
To ANONYMOUS at 6:42 p.m. September 27th:
As requested, here is your response:
The city clerk has absolutely no authority to make such a unilateral decision.
The city clerk is responsible for putting information on the website when she is instructed to do so by those with the authority to make such decisions.
Tom, the 6:42 p.m. blogger's unwarranted personal attack on the city clerk should be removed.
Martha Duchild
I agree with Martha Duchild 100%!
Now that Ms Duchild has advised us of where to place the blame for the late postings of the Charter issues, I wonder why the board of aldermen was tardy. I am glad that the clerk is now off the hook, and that we understand more about her role at city hall. Maybe next time she can just remind them of their responsibility in matters such as this, so they can be more timely. And if this is not of her choosing, perhaps someone else can take the initiative.
This blog is a particularly sensitive one. But many blogs are not politically correct. This is the nature of the beast. On this blog, I have seen nice and not so nice people maligned on a regular basis. This blog could well disappear if it were desensitised. Along with all its testy postings has come welcome information not available nor shared elsewhere. Those with a soft hide might want to stay away. I have learned to take it or leave it, and I realize that I am going to find some postings fair and some not so fair, but that is not for me to say.
I don't think the web master should take orders to delete unless they are in the realm of crude, vile or full of expletives, and he is already doing this. Residents have had too much wool pulled over their eyes; if some of their trust has eroded, there has been a reason why. I think we want to be the judge of what we choose to believe or ignor on this blog and in the newspaper andon the grapevine.
The boss of the City Clerk is the City Administrator, the Mayor and then the BOA.
Folks, if I were to delete the coments about Ms. Cottle, we would never see the irrational attempts to "blame someone else" on the blog.
It's never the fault of the people who are "too busy" to find out for themselves, or the ones "who can't get a photo ID", so it must be someone else!
To edit this blog, other to delete foul language would not be in the best interests's of the poster's. Why, well they too have the right to express their opinion, and we have the right to refute it!
A blog is never a place for a "thin skined" individual, for when you choose to post, you also choose to be rebutted, so, on this one, I shall let it stand.
Tom Ford
"Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself."
M. Twain
HUMMMMMMMMM!
Tom Ford
Is anyone else bothered by what I read in the SunCrest Call about Jerry Miguel sitting on every single board in town. It seems like Alderman Pickel's question regarding this matter was met with deafening silence. I have a huge problem with this. Alderman Miguel does not seem to be able to string a coherent sentence together and and seems lost half of the time. What sort of politics are at work here?
Last blogger, why don't you step off the blog and call Mr. Miguel and discuss your concerns with him, then form an opinion. Everyone deserves to defend themselves and you deserve to get the right answers. Too many times in Crestwood the first opinion formed is a political opinion. Time for us all to quit jumping to conclusions. Not all numbers people are eloquent and visa versa.
Miguel is only the mayor's water boy. He understands numbers like Russian speakers understand Spanish. There is no need to call him to discuss my concerns as I haven't got a couple of hours for his clarifying questions and response. BTW, I have already formed my opinion and you wouldn't want to hear it as you would think that it a political opinion.
I absolutely defend your right to comment on anyone, sir, blogger. But it surely sounds like you may be Mr. Pickel's waterboy. Mr. Pickel is not perfect nor is Mr. Miguel. They can both carry their own water. Wonder if Mr. Pickel would approve of your churning out his comments into negativity about his fellow alderman. Each of these gentlemen has their attributes and contributions and should be allowed to speak in Spanish or Russian. We should feel fortunate to have both. Your caustic overbite, however, seems to have become acceptable to those who cannot abide anything which does not resemble the beliefs of the herd to which they belong. I think you should reset your barameter to the "I Care About My City More" mode and cut the condescending crap. I just hope Mr. Pickel choses the high road. You nor he would like to be spoken of as you have spoken of Mr. Miguel.
Actually, sir, these are not times in Crestwood to split hairs. We need all the talent we can get on that board. Mr. Miguel has a lot of talent. He is held in high esteem by many. You certainly do not have to agree. Expressing a negative opinion on this blog is nothing new, so if it makes you happy, it makes me happy.
But why, what's the point?
Please share with us, item by item, Alderman Miguels talents. Start with the list of legislation that he has drafted, supported and gotten passed by the Board. Then list the business that have located in Crestwood that he has not objected to. Follow this with the specific votes he has made that have not increased spending or the hiring of new city employees. Then list the tax increases that he has voted against or did not support.
I think that's a great idea. But instead of singling out Jerry Miguel, let's analyze ALL of the aldermen and mayors over the past six years. Then we can really see where things went wrong.
Analyzing bizarre, butt bustin' Roy and quizzical, do nothin' Jerry will show where things have gone wrong.
4:17 Blogger, the 4:41 blogger seems a lot more objectionable than singling out just one alderman, who only has one vote. Don't you agree? So, will you volunteer to research, item by item, the contributions of all aldermen in the last 6 years and, of course, share it with us. This research would then be used to determine which officials were better for our city and which were not. Together, then, we can all determine what went wrong with our city in the last six years.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I don't think looking back will be of any help here. What's done, is done, and we can't call it back.
Lousy decisions? For sure, poor management of our funds? Yep, eago's running amuck? indeed! But where in there do you see current salvation?
I am one of the people who support's Alderman Miguel! Why? Well he cares about Crestwood, he takes time to study the facts, numbers, and he looks to the future to see what his decisions may bring.
I have known Alderman Miguel for some time now, and he has been more than forthcoming whenever I have asked questions that he could answer. If your on the "just do it" side, you won't like him, however if you out for the betterment of Crestwood you couldent find a better man!
Tom Ford
Dont forget it was poster 2:02 who was singing the praise of Miguel, so they should be able to support their praise or shut up.
Anyone hear the sound of fury coming from the WigWam of Chief Blundergut? Anyone recognize bitterness coming out of the pipe? Anyone realize the dispair slipping out of the feathers, the pot iron bullets? Anyone recognize this poor character's familiar MO? Man alive, the sound of defeat doth permeate thy soul. Blogger 5:47 is back in the saddle again. Long live riled-upers with whoopie big adjectives who have nothing to spew but lime juice. They make us believers look like Gary Cooper. Ain't it just too grand!!!
6:19 PM Don't be a truculent popinjay.
Good grief! What trite diatribe, what meretricious persiflage, what a "dollar wordsmith" in a two cent conversation!
Tom Ford
Dear 8:38 PM, September 28, 2006 - a.k.a. the blog that asked: "Is anyone else bothered by what I read in the SunCrest Call about Jerry Miguel sitting on every single board in town?"
Answer: No, you're the only one.
Please refer to the city's website http://ci.crestwood.mo.us/about/boards_coms.aspx - aldermen and their appointments to committees:
Steve Nieder - Animal Control Board
Chris Pickel - Bus. License Review Gregg Roby Board
Patricia Duwe
Rich Bland - Disabled Citizens Advisory Committee
James Kelleher - Economic Development
Steve Nieder - Fire Board
Richard Breeding - Neighborhood Watch
Pat Duwe - Park Board
Jerry Miguel - Planning & Zoning
Gregg Roby - Police Board
Rich Bland - Public Works
Chris Pickel - Sign Commission
Pat Duwe - TIF Commission
Richard Breeding
Jerry Miguel
(along with C/A
and Mayor) - Ways & Means
What does Joan Robinson think about about these charter changes?
Not sure she has an opinion either way. You may have to ask her, I don't know. I haven't heard anything.
When Mayor Robinson resigning from his position?
To blogger 12:20, Thank You, I find it disturbing. Seems our little town is even smaller than I first thought. Why are we letting yet another administration take us even further down the tubes???
"Why are we letting another admdinistration take us down the tube?"
Why not ask:
Mr. Breeding
Mr. Bland
Mr. Kelleher
Mr. Pickel
Mr. Miguel
Mr. Roby
Mr. Nieder
Ms. Duwe
These are the parties who do the voting. Here is where to get your answers.
Fellow Bloggers,
I understand that at least one person on the board of aldermen, (maybe more) have a problem with Jerry Miquel taking up time at board meetings. Can they not speak with Miquel privately about it or is it more fun to belittle him on this blog and on the dais in front of people?
If you have 8 aldermen as we do to serve one city - Crestwood, do these 8 aldermen not speak with one another except on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month? Do they not give their opinions and share comments other than at board meeetings? If a fellow alderman is getting the best of your tolerance, why not tell him face to face instead of at the meetings. If that is not possible, then we have a divided board AGAIN-AND STILL. I thought we were all working for the same goals in Crestwood?
Is any aldermen in a big hurry to get home fast from a board of aldermen meeting, so much so that they want everything to be done in five minutes? If that is so, maybe they should have not run for office in the first place.
There are differences among the board members, and then there are "differences". Speak up before the meetings and communicate for heaven sake; don't start that same business again where aldermen name call others on the board or slam their hands in disgust, like in the past. Residents are sick and tired of it.
When it comes time to be re-elected however, it seems then certain aldermen have more than enough time to make themselves available to other aldermen and residents. How convenient!
God help us keep term limits.
"Help us keep term limits", AMEN!
While were at it, let's use our heads and vote down this ill advised idea of a "Charter change", and all it includes!
There is no benefit at all to the City to change the Charter, not one, and the commission knows it. So if were all honest about it, we will admit the Charter is just fine the way it is, and VOTE NO!
Tom Ford
The charter has been an amazingly strong document. Let's not change it.
The charter amendments are supposed to be on the counter at city hall, and on line. They are a bunch of words meant to confuse, written by someone who did this on purpose. As usual. The Charter is fine as it is and was written by a extremely well versed board 10 years ago, which customized it to our city and did a fantastic job. It has been working, it is not broke.
What a hoot it has become, for some, to lambast the current administration which consists of 9 people, not 1, over every peep that comes out of their mouths. Charging them with everything but running out of TP. All this while remembering that the former administration broke its neck to get these Charter amendments on the ballot so they could do away with term limits and keep their jokers in office. Bottom line, it is not time to take your eye off the ball if you are a concerned resident who really cares. It is time to take very seriously what the illegal Charter Board appointed by the former Mayor (1 term) is trying to do to your Charter. Perhaps you should just go get a copy of the original Charter and come to your own conclusions.
While some are busy crucifying or reading and hearing all the hogwash about this administration, remember this - it is a smoke screen to get you to forget about the Charter amendments. Vote NO on the charter changes - they are easily one of the biggest shams the city has dealt with in years and let's face it, there have been many.
When politicians start messing with the city's Constitution having left behind a city in shambles and shame - you should dig deep enough to look into the comments I have written in this blog. Hey, this is your city, too.
Do the name FOLEY ring a bell? Do we need "term limit's"?
You bet we do! In fact I would like to return to the time when we sent a representitive to the Congress, Senate, or BOA, and they had to leave inside of three years.
Why give anyone a chance to become so ingrained into the system that they become the problem instead of the solution?
Join my family,and me in voting NO on the charter ammendment, in the long run, you will be very happy you did!
Tom Ford
Are you saying that term limits would have stopped Foley from being Gay? Or are you saying that there have been Crestwood aldermen who before term limits were gay and into under age boys?
I think you had better re-think your post.
Well, I have been to a couple of goat ropings, a texas bbq., and a ship launching, but that one takes the cake! Re-think my post? Where in the wide, wide world of sports did you get that twisted logic from my post?
What I said is for whatever reason you can think of (I'll bet you have some doozies,) we need term limits, period, nothing more, nothing less!
If you know something we don't, please advise. If not, please send me a case of whatever your evening cocktail is, as all I have is a Bud Light, and it's no where near as powerfull!
Wow!
Tom Ford
What is the connection between term limits inCrestwood and Foley?
I really thought I had heard it all until I read where Alderman Kelleher publicly admonished Alderman Miguel and in essence told him to speed things up. Now let's see, did someone appoint this Kelleher person to insult his fellow board members? If so, one has only to recall this Kelleher person's past behavior which was fitting for a dog fight with a beer tent. Looks like he is staying in character. Yep, we all remember. Proud moments for a guy who has one heck of a hard time finding time to even make the meetings including some of the special ones. Why don't you check the attendance records. BOA Meetings have no time limit and I would say we have enough unsolved problems that it just may take some extra time. This is not "boys Night Out" is it??? Gotta Wonder. Don't see where hurrying BOA Meetings up for this Kelleher person is warranted. If the Ward 2 Aldermen cannot remember they represent more than just their supporters, then perhaps they won't be all that effective. If they are short on time, maybe bowling would be their best bet.
Apparently these meetings are just too bothersome and long for this Kelleher person and he needs to avoid this middle man and head straight for the after-meetings. Here they can say and do all the things not suitable for our city's Board Of Aldermen Meetings where we fully expect them to behave like Gentlemen.
The only connection I can think of is that Foley was there long enough to be part of the "you can't touch me" types.
That, and only that! However, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolututely" (Desrelie.)
It was true then, and it's still true to this day, just look at Congress!
Tom Ford
11:05 blogger on 10/5
Mr. Kelleher does what he does best. Overloads his mouth and thinks he is cute. Jerry Miquel has had Kelleher's rath before, calling him a "snake in the grass" at a board meeting. That's because Kelleher aligns himself with Alderman Duwe and the previous mayor, and therefore, will never work with Roy on anything. It's called politics. They can't wait for the day he is gone and are just playing the "waiting game".
Mr. Kelleher will smooze himself all the way to becoming mayor some day as long as he can social climb himself properly. Kelleher and Duwe have always played politics and will always have an unproductive agenda with any mayor unless it's the one they want in office. Kelleher smoozes in order to make himself feel important, but he is nothing more than a dumb rookie trying to make himself look and sound as if he is so much better than the rest of us. What he ends up doing is making a fool of himself and almost everybody sees it.
This isn't the first remark during a meeting, there will be others to come. He thinks if he makes smug remarks and acts important, he will be important. It's a family trait like everybody really buys into their popularity contest. If you were to ever be around them, you will always feel inferior and feel that you can never measure up to their social status. Trust me, I know. They all play the role.
So while Mr. Kelleher plays politics, who is watching out for the people in his ward? Becoming aldermen, is just a stepping stone for things to come. Mark my word. People buy into appearances and what they are meant to perceive. For instance, if you are a member of St. E'z church, you must be God fearing. There has never been a time when Ward 2 didn't have at least one aldermen from St. E's. What you do is come in church after everyone else is there so they can see you. It's just the way it is in this town, and it's all about showmanship and appearance. And it will never change.
Poster 11:55, It's nice to see that you are becoming more Christ like in your daily walk with the Lord! Touching, to say the least.
to the 11:55 a.m. poster...
"no one can make you feel inferior without your consent"
Eleanor Roosevelt
how did the meeting go last night? Any news on how much interest will be paid in this refinancing scheme?
1:23 pm 10/5 and 4:43 pm 10/5 - Slow Down. I was just commenting on 11:05's remarks. You have your opinions and I have mine. If you disagree with me just say so without making unnecessary verbage about "Daily walks with the Lord" or "Eleanor Roosevelt"? Don't know what those remarks are suppose to mean or how it relates my comments. You need to look at those who are go to church professing to be Christian, but have no problem stabbing their fellow aldermen and the mayor in the back every chance they get. You may find fault with my comments, but at least I'm not a backstabber.
Talked to some people about distressed ex-officials of this city. Those who sit at home and beef on a blog or come to a meeting and beef, or send a parent to beef, or a screeching supporter to beef,or bring along their partner to beef, or a combination of all to beef.
Term Limits ... Long Live Term Limits!
Oh yeah!
Where's the beef?
sorry, just can't help it.
11:49 blogger. I can just see you in a little old hat, making that remark!
Heck with the beef, where's the serloin? I think we are looking at a faction on the BOA that is "all hat and no cows!"
Tom Ford
I agree. I think it's much better now that no aldermen question anything. It's a great mutual admiration society . Why did the old aldermen think they needed to ask questions?
Yes, the meetings are now so much more civil, if you know what I mean. No Alderman ever questions the mayor or Alderman Miguel and if some one from the Crowd asks a question then either Alderman Nieder or someone from the crowd starts wisphering to throw the speaker off.
It's not like the old days when if $8000 was spent with out a purchase order and was not voted on in public by the aldermen, there would be 30 people at the meeting taking turns asking questions. In those days we would get mad if Fagan or Greer made a face or took a deep breath before the answered us and then they would get all red in the face, man those were the good old days. Wonder were all those good citizens who took turns asking our questions are hanging out on Tuesday nite? Might be fun to join them, for with this mayor, there is no need to ask questions, no matter what our old buddy, Tom Ford says about trust but etc.
OK then. I'm not justifying the $8000 expenditure. I thought it was a waste of money. You should know however that the purchasing policy that was passed allowing the city administrator to spend that amount of money was passed in 2004. I believe Greer was c/a and Breeding was acting mayor.
ONCE AGAIN - the purchasing policy allows the c/a to spend the money AFTER SECURING 3 WRITTEN BIDS for BUDGETED ITEMS. can someone PLEASE request copies of the bids?
5:07 p.m. October 17th
YOU are that someone who needs to request the copies. This is YOUR government.
Aw, come on people, don't get upset. Let's just go and get a GO Bond. They sell them at Kohls.
right - and besides, those who are closest to the administration don't want to know whether they exist or not so they aren't going to request them.
They might be requested...after everyone gets some GO Bonds at Kohls.
i requested the bids today. Myers says he never got any.
since you say this is MY government, what can I do about this violation of the purchasing policy?
Appear before the board and make your concerns known. Talk to Mr. Myers. Talk to your aldermen.
The Charter has only one solution for a C/A violating its rules and that is the removal from his position by the Aldermen/mayor. I am not saying it should be done, just answering the question.
Prop 1 of the Charter changes allows for the C/A to appeal such action, which is currently not the case, if he's told to leave he has no appeal.
Or you can wait till next Aprils election and vote any alderman who does not publicly scold Mr. Myers.
To Anonymous at 8:33 p.m. October 19th:
When I asked the charter commission why they were deleting the "with no right of appeal" clause for the city administrator and city attorney, I was told that since both are contract positions with the city, there is no need for an appeal process because the terms and conditions regarding termination are provided for in their contracts, not as part of the charter.
In short, the reason the language is being removed is because it is not needed, not because the city wishes to grant the people in these positions the right to appeal a termination.
Martha Duchild
Myers has been asked about the bids. He offers no further explanation to citizens other than that he did not get any bids for the consultant. Apparently, he feels he's not accountable to citizens.
Somewhere on the blog I read that there is an amount that a C/A can spend up to without need for approval. Can someone advise that amount if in fact this is so? If this is so, then it is time to lay off the subject and let the board know the rules and keep the rule or change it.
The Aldermen voted okay for this study. Now is everyone supposed to recall 8 Aldermen and a Mayor and fire a C/A? You tell me. Well, that is, 7 Aldermen and a Mayor, one alderman never seems to be able to make the meetings.
So far $8000 is the cheapest lesson this city has ever learned. Remembering the last administration is like remembering the Alamo. Some of you really do need to get over yourself. You are against everything that happens in this city nowdays. This is the worst case of sour grapes in the history of the world Part 1.
poster 4:10, I do not think the Aldermen were given the chance to vote on the spending of $8000 for this get together. The support for this is Roy is quoted as saying he didnt know about the cost till after wards but it the aldermen had vote he would have been there
4:10 PM, October 20, 2006
Bravo!
Martha, I think you may be mistaken about the change found in Prop 1 of the Charter changes.
My copy of the the amendments given by the City dated 10/5/06 states that the phrase "with no right of appeal" will be deleted for both the City Attorney sec.4.8 and City Adm. sec. 5.1. This is on page 4 of the document.
Does that not mean the be dropping those 5 words they will now have the right of appeal, as other employees of the City do?
Does this make sense to you, or am I missing something?
thanks.
To 8:04 a.m. October 21
Yes it makes sense and that was my concern when I orginally asked the question of the commission. If the clause is deleted, does that not then allow for appeal? My concern was that absent any appeal process (which charters for other cities have for their contract employees), contract employees could sue the city upon their termination. The cities who do have an appeal process for their contract employees also have a clause that the results of the appeal are final; that the employee cannot sue the city after the appeal process is completed. I was told that since these two positions were contract employees, the terms and conditions of their termination were part of their contract.
In addition to the contract employees, the city also has classified and unclassified employees, and the appeal process in the civil service rules and regulations applies to classified employees only.
I hope this answers your question.
Martha Duchild
Missouri is an "at will" state.
Missouri is the Sho-Me state!
sorry, just had to add that.
To Anonymous 7:21 October 25th:
Your point about Missouri being an "at will" state is well-taken. I knew this when I originally addressed the commission. But I am also aware that other municipalities, knowing that this is an "at will" state, still have procedures written into their charters to address removal from office of contract employees. These charters allow a terminated contract employee the benefit of a public hearing. The action taken by the board after the hearing is not subject to review by any court or agency.
This seems like a reasonable process and one that would close any loopholes that removal of the clause "with no right of appeal" might create.
Martha Duchild
Post a Comment
<< Home