The "will of the people" means NOTHING in Crestwood! (Please click here for the editorial by Mr. Mike Anthony.)
AMAZING, or is it? As Mr. Anthony points out the "four horsemen of the ridiculous" have shown their true colors (a tax and spend agenda) by voting down the appointment of Mr. Doug Mosby to the Ward Two Alderman seat.
The why is obvious, simply because 65% of the Crestwood voters rejected their boy for mayor! In other words we "serfs" licked all the red off their candy, and their not happy!
We have all heard the lame excuses by Ms. Beesley and Ms. Duncan as to why Mr. Mosby "just wasn't right for Crestwood," but do you for one second believe them?
I recently heard that Mr. Pickel said he voted no because he received "two" calls from constituents who were not in agreement with Mr. Mosby's stand on TIF's or TDD's. Wow, these two phantom "anonymous" persons read Mr. Mosby's mind before he even got to the meeting? In the Navy we had two words that summed that up perfectly, "BRAVO SIERRA!"
There are a string of adjectives that come to mind when I contemplate these four, but none of them are fit to print here, so I shall not, but I will say that disgust is the least of my feelings for any of them!
Tom Ford
NO. 892
The why is obvious, simply because 65% of the Crestwood voters rejected their boy for mayor! In other words we "serfs" licked all the red off their candy, and their not happy!
We have all heard the lame excuses by Ms. Beesley and Ms. Duncan as to why Mr. Mosby "just wasn't right for Crestwood," but do you for one second believe them?
I recently heard that Mr. Pickel said he voted no because he received "two" calls from constituents who were not in agreement with Mr. Mosby's stand on TIF's or TDD's. Wow, these two phantom "anonymous" persons read Mr. Mosby's mind before he even got to the meeting? In the Navy we had two words that summed that up perfectly, "BRAVO SIERRA!"
There are a string of adjectives that come to mind when I contemplate these four, but none of them are fit to print here, so I shall not, but I will say that disgust is the least of my feelings for any of them!
Tom Ford
NO. 892
posted by Crestwood Independent at 20:58
79 Comments:
The "four horsemen" ALD. Duncan, Pickel, Beezley, and Foote.
These four rejected the Mayors pick, knowingly passing the choice to themselves.
I'm sure you have figured out that we are now locked in a box. The BOA is to pick a replacement member. The four can make the pick (only three other members). Then at the meeting, they take a vote...4 to 3 for their person. (only three other members).
Now there is a solid voting block of five!
And the President of the board is also a member!
I wonder if there is any action possible by citizens to prevent this fiasco.
If this comes to pass, these five people (who usually vote as a group) COULD control most things in Crestwood.
I have no personal knowledge of any plan, collusion, or illegal acts. These comments are only "What it looks like" to an average citizen...me.
But if it looks shady to me, does it to anyone else??
John: I am curious about the process here, as Tom mentioned in his post on the other thread that he has some idea about who has been selected. Wouldn't all of the 7 BOA members be involved or am I being naive?
Seems as if what he says is true, that a candidate has already been picked who will be satisfactory to at least 4 members. I guess we will know soon enough.
Elections do have consequences. It seems in this case, the consequences of electing the new mayor broke the back of the gridlock that existed before.
the will of the people was Mr. Schlink, not his pick for the alderman.
"Wouldn't all of the 7 BOA members be involved"
Yes, you are right. But if four voted to nominate someone, that would be the pick. The other three of course wouldn't count.
The new mayor is fine, but always in past years, the board voted for the mayor's choice. Apparently, no one thought that a group of aldermen would gang up to put their own pick in as alderman.
"the will of the people was Mr. Schlink, not his pick for the alderman"
I don't understand your comment. Yes the majority of voters picked Mr Schlink.
But the voters don't pick the replacement alderman. In this case, the Mayor will have no say in picking the replacement, BUT, neither will the people of Crestwood. The replacement will be chosen by four of the serving aldermen.
Just a reminder to all, the former Mayor did not carry one polling place in any of the WARDS! He did not come close to carrying WARD TWO! That means the Four Failures are denying Ward Two the representation it by it's vote wanted as shown in the April Election results. Who are they to know anything about WARD Two.. This is pure politics. And there will be other elections
Alderman Pickel will have to face those same voters in April 2012.
Tim Trueblood
Very good point Tim!
Politics? In Crestwood? Ha. It will be interesting to find out the name of the chosen one. If I lived in Ward 2 I would think about attending with the purpose of taking my questions directly to the prospective Alderman during the board topic. That is how citizen input can occur here.
to the 11:26 poster, John,
I meant just that. The people voted in Mr. Schlink. They did not give advanced approval by majority vote for eveything he wants during his term. The will of the people was fulfilled in Schlink's election, but every single thing he wants afterwards is not the will of the people. No government official gets free reign in this country to assign anyone, to do anything, simply because they were voted in. The will of the people was fulfilled when Schlink took office.
To 6:16 AM June 2
You are correct in stating that the will of the people was fulfilled when Mayor Schlink took office, but that is an oversimplification. The majority of voters (as Tim stated, in every single ward) put Mayor Schlink in office in an affirmation of his stated positions on issues.
Mr. Mosby, who expressed his interest in the Ward 2 seat when Mayor Schlink advertised the vacancy, expressed views that were fairly representative of Mayor Schlink's positions. If the majority of voters in Ward 2 put Mr. Schlink in office based on the principles upon which he ran, one can reasonably assume that the person they want to replace him as their Ward 2 alderman also hold those same principles.
Martha Duchild
"Politics? In Crestwood? Ha. It will be interesting to find out the name of the chosen one. If I lived in Ward 2 I would think about attending with the purpose of taking my questions directly to the prospective Alderman during the board topic. That is how citizen input can occur here."
Excellent, excellent idea!
We don't put people in office to reasonably assume anything. We vote for who the best candidate appears to be, but then they become subject to the same checks and/or balances as every other official. If simply voting someone into office was a blank check sign off on everything he wants to do, I shudder to think what could happen. Remember Hitler was voted into office, but was everything that he did later a reasonable assumption because they voted for him? That logic is flawed and the practice is actually very dangerous. Think about it now: if Mr. schlink has this carte blanche to do whatever he wants and appoint whomever he wants simply because we voted for him, then where are the checks and balances? Where is any level of accountability? "No, Mr. Mayor, we don't think Crestwood should take out 2 million dollars' worth of loans to build 2 new buildings". Answer: "Well, you voted for me, so that's all I need". As a citizen, I am sorry his choice wasn't approved, and I'm sure he finds that frustrating, but he cannot be given the freedom to do whatever he wants now that he's mayor simply because he was voted in. (and no, I don't think he's going to take out those loans, it was just an example).
We elected these people and now it's time to hold them accountable for their actions, including the choice of the replacement candidate. At some point soon, the replacement (if they so choose) will need to stand for election.
I don't think there's anything nefarious here. It's just a continuation of the partisanship that really should have no place in this arena. Do we know the tenure of the appointee?
I did not say that we voted Mayor Schlink into office under the assumption that he had carte blanche to do whatever he liked. The system of checks and balances is part of the city's charter, so even if, to use your example, a mayor wanted to take out $2 million in loans, he couldn't.
The assumption to which I referred was that if you are elected by a majority of voters in your ward, and you ran on a campaign of fiscal conservatism, would it not follow that the majority who elected you would like your replacement to be fiscally conservative as well? To conlcude otherwise is illogical.
Martha Duchild
be that as it may, his appointment still falls under the checks and such from the aldermen. I still say I am sorry his appointment didn't go as he planned, but simply saying "whomever you choose is fine" because he got voted for is faulty logic, and it has not one thing to do with the will of the people. The will of the people has already been served. From now on, their elected aldermen do the job of checks and balances.
When an alderman is appointed in a ward, the people in that ward have to work with the approved person. If the aldermen present at that meeting heard anything from constituents in Ward 2 regarding the candidate which shows he/she is not suited for the position, they have an obligation to state such at the meeting.
If his defeat was a conspiracy of some sort and those who voted against him and have an alternate plan to get a candidate who is going to vote and side with them, I feel this is really wrong and unfair.
Unfortunately, Crestwood has always had aldermen who are divided and I simply cannot understand why some board of aldermen members - all the time - seems to put up walls. And that goes for every administration not just this one.
I thought when we got a new mayor this time, we would not see that anymore; but true to form, here it comes again.
I live in Ward 2 and I am not in favor of this candidate for my own reasons, but it seems that those from other wards besides Ward 2 who chat on this blog feel he would be good. How is that when some don't even live in this ward?
I wasn't at the meeting, so I do not know how it proceeded. However, I do agree with another blogger who stated that the mayor should have been present. That would have been the considerate thing to do.
Is this a mere image of what is to come? I hope not. I am tired of the decension we have had in the past.
"I live in Ward 2 and I am not in favor of this candidate for my own reasons, but it seems that those from other wards besides Ward 2 who chat on this blog feel he would be good. How is that when some don't even live in this ward?"
"I wasn't at the meeting,"
I do live in ward 2, and I was at the meeting. And last night I read almost the entire charter (interesting, but not very exiting.)
Technically the board followed the charter. And it spells out the requirements to be an alderman. The person chosen by the Mayor met those. I believe that the Mayor interviewed a number of candidates, and chose the person who would do the best job as alderman of ward two.
Unfortunately, there seem to be some EXTREME hatreds from ten or more years ago among some people in Crestwood, and they are still affecting their judgement, and decisions. If they cannot set these aside, they should not be in public office.
At the BOA meeting, the few pitiful questions, and the rant by Ms. Beezley was shocking. The reasons given were not anywhere in the city charter, and should not have applied. Then, of course the vote by the same four who always vote alike won (because of course, there were only three other votes) and the candidate was rejected for the first time in memory.
To see where we are now, take a look at my post at the beginning of the thread.
Ward Two Alderman will be filled for year ending April 2012. Then after one year in office (April 2013) his term will end again and they if they want to remain in office will have to run again, this time for 3 years.
It's like this
Alderman elected to 3 yr term
Leaves after one year leaving 2 left in the 3 yr term.
Person appointed occupies seat until the next general election (4/2012) to be ELECTED by the voters for the last year of the 3 yr term. Or defeated if someone runs against them.
In 2013 the seat will be open again but this time for full 3 years.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money to spend.”
by Margaret Thatcher
Any chance we can get this across to Beesley, Foote, Pickel and Board president, (AKA Big Momma Da Da for life,) Duncan?
I smell a set up of their chosen one by these four to insure TIF's, TDD's, and CID's to anyone with four cents in their pocket that wants to set up a lemonade stand!
review Beesleys inane question's and you will start to see that pattern emerging.
By the way, under the guide lines set up by these four would it not follow that anyone selected by them should have had no previous ties to he City. And while were at it, how about the future if say their company could possibly wish to do business with the City?
I am going o follow this "selection" extremely closely as if the person I have heard is their choice is placed in nomination, he/she will have had both, and as such must be rejected less they look like the Hippocrates they truly are!
Tom Ford
3:52 June 2
A vote cannot be taken for this seat until April 2012. This is an appointed seat, and thus the job of the Mayor (if he is acting in the interest of his ward) is to appoint the person who:
a. expressed interest in the job and b. is a good representative (read: reflects the majority opinion) of the people in his ward
Mr. Mosby's selection was publicized ahead of the meeting. If anyone had an issue with his appointment, they had an opportunity to express their opinions (good or bad) at the meeting. I'm sure Mayor Schlink, having full confidence in the qualification of Mr. Mosby, did not feel it necessary to delay the appointment until the following meeting just so he could be present. It was the board's decision to make, and they made it. The mayor appoints, the board approves (or not, in this case).
Martha Duchild
how do we get from the aldermen not voting in favor of the mayor's choice to socialism?? Good Lord, do you really see it everywhere?
Reading the 'Call' this week was an education for me. To see 4 of our aldermen vote down someone and at the same time make it so obvious that they did it because they have their own choice (probably already picked out; BUT considering why two of these four explained why they couldn't vote for Mosby, they sure will have one helleva time picking someone who either has'nt worked for the City or a company who hasn't worked for the City because all of their lame excues will be brought right back to them when they pick someone else. MS Duncan was the smart one (for she didn't answer why she voted against him) but of course she couldn't have said because my friend wanted me to!
"...had an opportunity to express their opinions (good or bad) at the meeting."
"It was the board's decision to make, and they made it."
I was at the meeting, and I don't remember any opportunity being given for the public to comment. I would have thought there would be an opportunity after the board asked their questions. The questions were very brief, then Ms. Beezley made a statement, and a vote was quickley taken.
The part that I don't understand was the statement that she didn't want to set a dangerous precedent by appointing a former city employee to the board. I could not find anything about this in the Charter. Does bringing this up as a reason for the vote have any future legal implications?
Sir or Madam, regardless of where you live, coming to the boa meetings will give you such a good idea of how Crestwood is run and also you have the opportunity to say whats on your mind. We need people who care enough to attend, as always, when you don't make a decision, someone will make it for you.
Good Grief! With important issues to be made by this new board, I don't think we should take this matter lightly but it sure sounds like the battle has just started.
I just wish that all board members are given a chance - one by one - at the next meeting to explain why they voted yes or why they voted no for Mosby. But I am not sure it will happen or that it's going to matter anymore.
Sounds like this little ordeal was premeditated and at the next meeting a new nomination will be made, approved and tied up in a neat package with a bow on top.
Every aldermen on that board should be allowed time to speak and if this wasn't done individually at the last meeting, it should have been. It should have been discussed openly that night with each aldermen. Instead it sounds like that did not happen.
Anyway, get your rolaids ready if you go to the next meeting.
I feel sorry for Jeff if he wants to unite the board members.
John,
You brought up an interesting point. I listened to the tape of the meeting, and overlooked the fact that no one from the audience was invited to make a comment. I believe it is up to the discretion of the person presiding at the meeting to allow public comment on issues, with the exception being the agenda item that is specifically dedicated to public comment.
Normally, if the person presiding does not ask for public comment, you can always raise your hand and ask permission to speak. No guarantees that you will be allowed, but if you want to make a comment it's worth a try.
The whole process was a charade. Apparently there is a separate charter out there somewhere, and according to that charter you are automatically disqualified for appointment to an elective office if you've been a Crestwood employee. Also in that charter is a stiputlation that some aldermen may do business with the city and it's OK, but others may not. And let's not forget the provision that you may be disqualified based on a single issue.
What is perplexing is Alderman Foote's contention that it's OK for Mr. Mosby to run in April, but he isn't qualified to be seated by appointment. I'd love for Mr. Foote to expound on that.
Martha Duchild
"I feel sorry for Jeff if he wants to unite the board members."
I know that Jeff can take care of himself!
The problem is half the board is united by super glue. And if they are able to execute the second step of the plan, they will control the board, and possibly the City.
To; Martha Duchild
This is off this topic a bit, but we do need a breather.
Could you explain to me how a board vote works if there is an abstention please? I do know that a 4 to 4 tie is broken by the mayor, but have not figured this one out. Thanks.
"Normally, if the person presiding does not ask for public comment, you can always raise your hand and ask permission to speak."
Actually, it went so fast, from a few questions, to Ms. Beezley's dressing him down, to a quick vote, that most of us there were thinking, 'what the heck just happened?'. And by then, it was a done deal, and too late for questions. Also, the acting mayor was voting, in addition to conducting the vote.
What board does Mrs. Beesley sit on? Oh yeah, its the police board isn't it? Who hired Doug Mosby? Oh yeah, it was Don Greer. Who demoted Mr. Mosby when he became chief? Oh yeah, our current police chief. I sure hope that one of our aldermen didn't have strings attached to her arms and mouth. Or someones hand using her like a puppet. Someone of a shorter statute.
There is an answer to this ... one that is simple but will take a lot of work.
Recall two of the four, or all of the four.
Pack city hall and question the heck out of the new candidate.
If the board selects a new candidate (I'm sure they will pick a tax and spender), does the mayor have to sit him and swear him in?
6:52 PM Blogger: Answer, we don't but I always liked Margret Thatcher so I thought I would toss it in. I fits those four perfectly, no.
Tom Ford
I know that Ms Duncan is ward 1 alderman but I cannot remember voting for her, can someone help me remember when this happened. I think noone should ever be allowed to become an alderman except to be voted in by their constituents. This having the present alderman pick another alderman just doesn't make good common sense to me. An alderman should be chosen by his ward's members and he/she should vote for them and them only, not get into a 'good old boys club' I intend to ask Ms. Duncan what she has done for ward 1 at the next meeting. This doesn't seem unreasonable to ask, what do you think? Would appreciate some comments. If I'm wrong, let me hear from you. Thanks and Please attend next week's meeting.
The rumor mill states Steve Knarr is the favored child. I not hope not. Steve was an avid Roy guy.
John,
If one of the eight alderman abstains from a vote, then the possibility of a tie is eliminated (provided that all eight aldermen are present). The result is that there is no tie for the mayor to break, and not enough votes (ayes or nays) to constitute a majority, so whatever issue is being voted upon will not pass due to the lack of majority. Hope this answers your question.
Also, when the aldermanic president presides at a BOA meeting, he is allowed to cast a vote. Keep in mind that the mayor can leave and return during a BOA meeting, or miss the meeting entirely. In both cases, the aldermanic president can still vote. Even though the aldermanic president is considered the acting mayor in the mayor's absence, that person is not allowed to break a tie or veto any bills.
Martha Duchild
Martha,
Thank you VERY much for a clear, and simple explanation!
I read over the charter a day or two ago, and I saw the rule for the president of the board as acting mayor, but nothing on the "abstain" action.
The reason I directed the question to you was that you always give a clear, simple, and understandable explanation that even I can understand. I am glad that you watch this board, and comment, and are willing to answer our questions.
Thanks!
John
John,
Thanks for taking the time to become more informed. I've always said that I wished more people would do what you are doing: get involved and, more importantly, get informed.
I know people are busy, but honestly it doesn't take that long to listen to an audio of the meeting, read the charter, read the newspapers, email/call your alderman. (Not all at the same time of course).
Martha Duchild
7:53 PM Blogger: Very good idea. She is (or should be) accountable to the citizens of her Ward, and for that matter all of Crestwood.
Be nice, but be firm, do not allow her to get out of answering any of your questions.
Tom Ford
10:12 PM Blogger: I know Steve and he is a good man but, he has the very same baggage that the four used to vote down Mr. Mosby.
If you remember he was a member of the architectural firm that billed us $1,5 million dollars for plans on the Police Palace.
That coupled with the fact that the Crestwood Courts will need an architect or two might pose a "conflict of interest" in the future.
Surly Ms. Beesley and friends wouldn't have the nerve to appoint a person with the same credentials as the one they turned down, would they?
Tom Ford
10:12 I cannot believe you are still going back to the "Roy" business. Are you just plain stupid or are you just trying to make trouble?
Roy is gone period! You might hear lots of things being said about Knarr or anybody being a Roy supporater but it doesn't mean anything.
I support this mayor 100% but I voted for Roy. The people wanted a new mayor and Jeff won and that was the will of the people! I support it, defend their right to a new mayor, and will give 100% to Jeff. Am I a bad person - I guess I am. Shame on me! I should have just stayed home from the polls that day because there would be people like you who would deny me the right to vote how I wanted, and want me flogged in front of city hall.
10:00 AM Blogger: Come now, do you really feel it's the right thing to do (call someone stupid) without signing your name?
You disagree, I understand that better than most, but when I go after someone I sign it, shouldn't you?
Tom Ford
Mr. Ford, Oh Yeah! I anonymously disagreed with the previous comment regarding Roy. And true to form, you would have to say something to shame me for it. As God knows you love it when someone else besides youself expresses their contempt for Roy. Otherwise you wouldn't give a tinker's darn if I remained anonymous or not.
You just can't get Roy out of your - you know what - and that, sir, is corrupting your whole sense of fairness.
Yes it's your blog so you can do what want.
I blogged the person who made the comment and stated my piece, and until everyone is demanded to sign their names to comments, it should not matter to you.
12:23 PM Blogger: No not a bit of it. You read this Blog and since you do you know that I have said repeatedly that I may erase any post that calls names without the poster giving their name!
Yes it is my Blog, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that post, but if your not happy I can always go back and delete you.
Your over reacting to a post that is the OPINION of a fellow Blogger, not the word of God, just their opinion.
If this Blog is becoming too much for you may I suggest you find another forum as we wouldn't want to be responsible for your nervous break down.
(PS: I never mentioned Roy, you did!)
Tom Ford
I didn't know Matt Green rad this blog,
Mr. Ford - the person who mentioned "Roy" was not you - I know that. It was the person at 10:12 and that is who I first commented to. And because he was negative about "Roy", I replied to his comment - and after that - you commented and chided me for being anonymous. In essence I then commented to you.....that
You would not have chided me for being anonymous had my comment to 10:12 NOT been about "Roy".
I am sorry you feel that my comment to 10:12 needed an comment from you on the subject. I am sorry you feel the need to tell me that it is your blog, etc. and so on as you have said it many times.
It seems you feel the need to try to "match wits" on this subject - and to tell you the truth - go ahead and try. My comments on your blog are not about playing a game or trying to match wits. I was just making a comment to the person who mentioned "Roy" in the first place.
It is indeed not a big deal so let's just forget it OK? Whew - I think I need a drink. Thanks!
5:41 PM Blogger: Well if you come to the house I will buy that drink for you!
Glad your still with us!
Tom Ford
Back to the subject at hand ..
I wonder if Alderman Beezely believes that the former teachers/administrators who run for the Lindbergh BOE also do not have a right to be on that board due to their status as former employees?
What about former CEO's of large corporations who then become members of the board of directors of those same corporations?
Martha Duchild
for me the key word there is "former". Mr. Mosby is a current employee of the comapny the city does business with, that is a conflict of interest. What is more alarming is that Mr. Schlink, with his background in the business world, did not appear to know that, or he disregarded it. Neither makes he feel good.
Gee, Anonymous 8:22 6/5, Ward Two voters didn't have a problem electing Mr Vincent for their Alderman when he sat on the Swim Club board. So who are you to say Mr. Mosby would have been a "larger' problem than what that turned out to be for Mr. Vincent?
I had to recluse myself on votes due to a family member placing a bid for work with the City and Ward Two voters seemed ok with that for thirteen years.
I think you are just tying to cover the Four Failures rear end in your statement.
Tim
Trueblood
P.S. nice try on the deflection, I'll give you that much.
Good Sunday morning! I like the blog, appreciate it very much as I cannot get out and it helps me feel like im tied to the latest things going on in crestwood. One thing i'd really like is, when i put something on, say, and then at the end there is the date and time and if someone wants to comment, well, it's difficult for me to go back and forth between what was written and at what time. from what i read it seems some people say something in answer to a date and time and when i finally find the date and time; that it doesn't seem like the latest comment is referring to that date and time. is this confusing or is it just me? Could we just say assign a nickname like 'cranky' at the end of our blog and would that make it easier (at least for me) and it wouldn't have to be 'cranky' it could be 'smiley'.
8:54 AM Blogger: We sure can do that, now will everyone do it? In a word, no. But we can try.
I do it with my name so there is never any question, but a "Nick name" is just fine with me, so pick one a Blog away!
Tom Ford
fine, I will remain "Liberal?".
Bring up all the aniceint history you want. I have no pony in this race. I frankly don't care whether Mr. Mosby is an alerman or not. Whether or not someone else did this or that is moot. The current situation is what needs to be dealt with. he has a conflict of interest that he admitted with his own mouth, and that isn't acceptable. Just because people looked the other way in the past about things that weren't all the way "kosher" doesn't mean they should do it now. Honestly I couldn't care less either way about Mr. Mosby.
9:30 AM Blogger: "liberal," then why are you so worked up about this?
You seem to be upset by something that you yourself stated that you could care less about?
I know you said two wrongs do not make a right, and I agree, but please don't let it bother you to the point of ruining your day.
Tom Ford
fear not, it didn't.
L?
Things are looking up. We have four courageous people, Tom, Tim, Martha, and L. So at least four Crestwood residents aren't afraid to say what they feel. Now if L. said something that caught my attention and I wanted to comment, I would say TO L. so on, so forth. So to L. thank you for being co-operative. I do think this would simplify things.
To 12:32 June 4th, you seem to feel you are picked on, but I don"t believe you are. Roy Robinson, our past mayor, isn't a culprit or a hero, just a man who did his best. So let's try to find out the reasons people want to become our aldermen and then why they don't do our wishes after they get in. To 12:32 June 4 Tom answered you and it felt fair to me. We can't be faint hearted with this Crestwood thing. remember, when the going gets tough, the tough get goin....
Whoops, forgot to give myself a nickname! I'll use Suni
11:42 AM Blogger: "L?" EXCELLENT!
Tom Ford
Or, after you write your comments, and enter the "secret word", you can go below that and click on Name/URL, and put you nick name in the box, and go down and click the orange bar. In my case I put John.
Thank you John. I was hoping someone would explain it to me so I could understand. Again, thanks.
"L"
Are you prepared to ask for Alderman Pickel's resignation due to his conflict of interest? He is an employee of AT&T, a company with whom the city does business.
If not, then you should have no problem with Mr. Mosby's appointment.
Please read the charter. Mayor Schlink appointed Mr. Mosby because he is a ward 2 resident who expressed interest in the job and, more importantly, HE MEETS THE QUALIFICATIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE CHARTER.
The "conflict of interest" issue is a distraction. Like Alderman Pickel has done in the past, all Mr. Mosby has to do is recuse himself from voting on an issue in which their exists a conflict of interest (as defined in the city's charter) for him. The charter anticipated that these conflicts can arise, and has provided a solution.
Martha Duchild
I am quite certain he more than meets the QUALIFICATIONS IN THE CHARTER, as you yelled it, but no, I don't think he should be an alderman. Yelling at me doesn't change my opinion, so sorry. It had less to do with the voting on a particular subject or topic as it has to do with the potential for ongoing, creeping slants towards their comapnies. I would be much opposed to the city doing business with Mr. Schlink's company also. I am not thrilled with Mr. Pickel's employment with a company the city does busines with. I do not like it, whether you yell in all caps or not, Ms. Duchild, I STILL do not like it and think it's inappropriate. I realize it's fine with the charter, and appears to be fine with you. I never said it wasn't. I simply stated my opinion, that I felt it was a bad idea and inappropriate.
L?
Doug Mosby was voted down and it's time to move on. He's not going to fill the vacant opening by appointment.
If you believe the aldermen didn't give him a fair shake due to whatever rationale they claimed, you're free to hold those beliefs. If you think the next candidate should be held to the same standards, then actually do something about it at the BOA meeting, or prior by seeking out your representative and giving them your views. We elected these people and you shouldn't have to guess about their intentions.
If you think the best approach would be to organize some kind of quid pro quo to vote down the next person, that might be interesting but doesn't move the city along. At what point does everyone want to let go? From the sounds of some, history matters more than the future. Swim clubs, police buildings, Roy, Four Horsemen,Vincent - whatever.
When Folks realize that none of that matters, we might begin to work together and finally begin to move forward. Someone earlier referenced the new mayor and if he wanted to unite the board. One would assume he would want that, but the petty nonsense played by all of the board (not just the so-called Four Horsemen) needs to stop.
What we need is a solid voting bloc of 8 - all aligned in the best interests of this city, which is already a joke due to the factionalism. If anyone is planning actions, let's hope the goal is to attempt to achieve a united board. Anything short of that is a complete waste of time and energy.
8:29 AM June 6
That is exactly what Mayor Schlink tried to do when he appointed Mr. Mosby - move the city forward.
The reason I reiterated to "L" (by the way I am not yelling, I'm repeating what I said earlier), the charter requirement is to highlight the fact that the board had no legitimate reason to reject Mr. Mosby.
While "L" may be uncomfortable with Mr. Mosby's potential for having to recuse himself from a vote, one cannot hold someone's employment against them. If we were to accept "L's" argument, then all candidates would have to answer the question of whether they have in the past, or currently, or anticipate in the future done or will do business with the city.
If you "create" a prohibition such as the one "L" wishes to apply, then it must be applied equally, at all times and to all people.
As I said before, those who wrote the charter understand that conflicts may occur (and they cannot always be predicted), and have provided a solution.
I've supported my position. If "L" chooses to discriminate against candidates due to their employment, so be it. The point I'm trying to make is that there is no legal basis for this type of discrimination.
Martha Duchild
Ms. Duchild:
Your position is duly noted. Frankly, what matters going forward are the positions and actions of Mr. Duchild, as he is one of the elected officials in whom we've placed our voting trust to move the city forward.
His words and voting actions, along with his peers, are the ones that matter. Given that Doug Mosby is not going to be appointed, what matters now will be to observe how the board acts in taking the next steps. If there's partisan rancor and attempts at any quid pro quo, it will signal what true intentions exist.
We are free to opine but the folks in whom we placed our voting trust have a more honorable set of responsibilities to uphold.
Ms. Duchild: I agree with you regarding the conflict of interest. People on the board who find themselves in that spot, have and still can recuse themselves. It has never been a big deal until now.
However, what if those 4 on the board are not sure about the way Mosby answered their questions aside from the conflict of interest issue?
Or maybe they have spoken to others who have had problems with him while working for the city? I don't know, I am just asking. Had the 4 aldermen heard negatively about Mosby from other constituents and do not want to give out their names. Would that be "heresay", if they heard it from a reliable source? What about previous police officers who served with him? What about his demeanor seen by others while being a police officer in Crestwood?
Could it or would it be possible to base their decision on other things besides a conflict of interest?
With respect to Mr. Duchild, as well as Mr. Miguel, in listening to the audio from the last meeting not a single peep was heard from either one of them during the Doug Mosby portion. Not one question. Not one challenge about the line of questioning. Not one rebuttal about the personal positions being taken. Not one word in support of Mr. Mosby. Not one motion to table the vote until a future meeting. Nothing but crickets.
Given that, and the fact that there wasn't one stated utterance during the hearing, one would have to assume that they had no procedural concerns, otherwise they would have voiced them.
I believe that I heard Mr. Wallach open with questions as did Mr. Pickel. Ms. Beezley and Ms. Duncan also weighed-in. Where was Ward 3?
A few comments to L. If you are a ward 2 resident, why not try to come up with a candidate for alderman. It is a real challenge. Every person who holds a job anywhere is likely to have some sort of a 'conflict', that is why alderman have the option to 'recuse' themselves from voting sometimes. This has worked very well. A few years back Ward 1 alderman McGee died and Roy named his widow to fill his spot until the next election. I don't recall anybody asking one thing about his widow, Roy liked her and that's all it took.
We need a good, understandable set of rules and I don't believe we have that. Everything that goes on is up for 'intrepretation'.
The comment 'going back in history' comes up often. If we don't pay attention to the mistakes in the past, we are likely to repeat them. Interestingly enough, if you go back and read what happened to Mr. Mosby in 1994, you'll see that Alderman Brasfield headed a committee to investigate Mosby and the result of that committee was: No wrong doing - NONE. So, if we don't look back at history, we wouldn 't know that. A younger member of the boa wasn't around back then so they couldn't possibly know all the facts, so isn't it our responsibility to inform them?
so isn't it our responsibility to inform them?
Of what?
The younger generation doesn't listen anyway; so why bother? If you say something that happened years ago and you are old, you automatically don't know what you are talking about or you are considered of having dementia. Let them learn everything the hard way otherwise you are spitting in the wind.
10:54 AM Blogger: Well if we were ALL to do as you say nothing would ever be passed down to the next generation.
I teach HVAC classes for credits (St. Louis County personal education units) that are mandatory for mechanics to keep their license.
Before I start every class I tell them how old I am, and how long I have been in the industry. Then tell them that if they think I have nothing to teach them they are free to go!
I have yet to loose a student in 5 years of doing this.
Moral of the story, keep talking, the young folks will listen and thank you for it.
Tom Ford
10:54 AM, June 08, 2011
I feel the same way sometimes.
BUT, if you don't even try to pass on the things you learned the hard way, then you, me, and a lot of others suffer.
The reason our govenment is of the people (of all ages) is to get a wide variety of ideas on how best to do things.
Take a look at the U S Congress. It is made up of young guys, all the way up to geezers. One of them was even a year ahead of me in high school! Now that,s old!
John,
I just can't resist and I mean no harm but I just have to ask you,
What school did you go to?
Now I can sleep
Tim
Trueblood
dPont Manual High School in Louisville, Ky. (Used to be a manual arts (trade) school) that changed to a regular co-ed high school before my time.
If you can get Mitch McConnell to tell you how old he is, I am a year younger!
Have a good day!
The minority leader? He was born in 1942, wasn't he?
Good guess.
I know that "your high school" is a St Louis thing.
But at least 'back then' in Louisville it only meant that was where the school system sent you. It seemed to have nothing to do with where you lived, or anything else. There was Manual HS that was not a trade school. There was Male HS that was co-ed. They sold discount bus tickets, and you rode a city bus to and from school. And there were a number of other schools scattered around town.
If this Mosby issue is over and done with and cannot be resurrected and there is no way we can undo his Ward 2 aldermanship, then we have to move on.
In a previous comment by Ms. Duchild stating there is no legal reason why Mr. Mosby should have been denied the Ward 2 seat as alderman - then there should also be no reason why we cannot accept Steve Knarr for the position.
I have no idea why Mosby's nomination was not accepted on the grounds of conflict of interest. I am thinking there has to be something else going on. I am sorry but there have been tons of nominations for people to be aldermen for years and years. I have never heard of this being such a hugh hurdle. And although I do not feel Mosby is the best fit for that position, it makes me ill to think that he was turned down for conflict of interest.
But moving on is what we need to do or we will stagnate ourselves with what happened. I just wish I knew the real reason why he was rejected. Saying conflict of interest just doesn't do it for me.
"I am thinking there has to be something else going on."
You are correct. The 'gang of four' wants to be the 'gang of five' to have total control of the BOA.
Post a Comment
<< Home