Election results and What is Wrong with Dills?
According to the St. Louis Election board, the election results have been certified. If you wanted to skip the meeting before, you will definitely want to attend to see Herr Schnieder sworn in.
In a related thing, ORT Contrarian e-mailed some interesting information. However, instead of repeating it here, it is posted on his blog.
I would assume if Schneider is sworn in, he will be appointing Dills. I guess when Schneider said that Dills was "his kind of man", he really meant in the tax sense of the word.
In a related thing, ORT Contrarian e-mailed some interesting information. However, instead of repeating it here, it is posted on his blog.
I would assume if Schneider is sworn in, he will be appointing Dills. I guess when Schneider said that Dills was "his kind of man", he really meant in the tax sense of the word.
posted by suzyjax at 11:41 AM
23 Comments:
It's Over for Overland. I am bumming. My wife and I are seriously looking at moving. She wants to move across the river. But their last mayor went to prison when he got caught making "deals". They don't have "free" trash either. The housing market sucks. I feel like I just been rolled over on by COGG's wheels.
MS won't be sworn in tonight. First the the city hasn't even received the official results, second an ordinance has to be written for approval of the election results, third there has to be a reception or party put together. Now Les go pay your bill so you will eligible to be the new Ward Councilman.
I think he could be sworn in. After all, Queen Ann high-tailed it into Clayton to get sworn in PDQ once the results were made "official".
Mike is not Queen Ann.
Mike will not be sworn in tonight.
I'm not sure if they will swear him in or not. While I would agree that they normally would wait until the next meeting instead of doing a bunch of very last minute planning, there is another issue.
This is the only Council meeting scheduled for August. September 10th is the next to follow. I'm not sure they will want to wait nearly four weeks for this.
Drafting the ordinance should not be that time consuming, simply take the one written for Purzner, change then names and the dates and hit print. :-) A simple vote of the Council at the meeting could add the swearing in to the Agenda, and if they were to do this, I am confident that the people at the Community Center are more than up to a last minute challenge such as this.
We'll have to wait and see as it looks like it could go either way to me.
I can't imagine that Mike would delay his power grab for the sake of punch and cake.
Sunshine Laws and Agenda's won't allow it
Maybe I am just dumb, but don't see where the Sunshine Law applies. Are "swearing ins" covered under this law? Is the public required and/or in need of 24-hour notice before an elected official takes the oath of office? It seems to me we are better off with Schneider off than on the council, especially in regards to whatever is planned with the pension plans.
The Council has voted before to change, add and subtract things from the agenda when necessary. I don't see how this is different.
As for the Sunshine Law, when it comes to public meeting notices the only requirement concerning the agenda is that a "Tentative Agenda" be publicized at least 24 hours in advance (610.020 #1). The operative being: tentative (#2 seems to be the most applicable here).
Interestingly the Sunshine Law also has the "good cause" (AKA exceptional circumstances) provision which allows for meetings to be held with less than 24 hours notice so long as the reason for this departure is included in the minutes and a reasonable "good cause" created the situation (610.020 #4). Not getting election results certified until less than 24 hours before an existing meeting and not having another scheduled until nearly 4 weeks from that date would quite possibly be considered a credible "good cause".
Since this particular issue involves a meeting where public notice of the tentative agenda was properly made and tentative agendas can be changed with a majority vote of the council, I see no reason why they could not add Mr. Schneider's swearing in if they choose to do so.
OS,
Please stick with reporting and leave the legal analysis to Mr. Herman.
The whole reason the Sunshine Law requires notice and a published agenda goes right to the heart of due process. That's in the the Constitution........
Only non-material changes can be made to the meeting agenda without republication. Just like zoning hearings.
I do believe the swearing in of a mayor would clear the materiality bar. To procced as the Sailor suggests could even set the City up for a challenge to the swearing-in. Why risk it. Do it right. We are a society of laws.
Hairy To each their own. However, there are standards to how laws are crafted. The use of the word "Tentative" suggests the agenda can be changed. I don't see anything in the Sunshine law to suggest otherwise.
When it comes to the subject of the agenda the Sunshine law (Specifically : 610.020 #1) states:
"its tentative agenda, in a manner reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered". Not exactly iron clad language.
Add to this 610.020 #4 and I personally believe that the City would not be violating to Sunshine Law if they were to add the swearing in ceremony to tonights meeting.
I guess it would be even closer to the law if they called a special meeting for say Tuesday night, referencing the desire not to delay installing the duly elected Mayor for a month and the timing of the Election Board's certification of those election results. However, I don't see how that serves the public interest. People interested in what is happening in City government are already attending the Monday meetings. Their schedules might not allow for them to attend a Tuesday meeting with 24 hours or less notice.
Nascarnic- Don't move! Especially over the river it is a very scary place. Over on the other side of life they have stores like Hobby Lobby's, they have Downtown Historic area filled with shops and real restaurants, they have a foundry arts center and a symphony. Hell those people they even have a fantastic parks program, they have winery's, and antique districts, they have their own convention center, baseball team and their own stadium. Why in the hell would you want to move over there?
Thanks Suzy
Suzy,
Post at 4:15 needs no explanation.
I'm sorry you have been bothered with it.
If you would like me to quit posting for awhile let me know.
Man About,
Not till you do.
OS
Actually, its not to each his own. I believe this "agree to disagree" approach is an easy crutch but it is often wrong. The law has winners and losers.
I am glad to stake my law degree and 20+ years of experince in municipal law against your degree in whatever it is you have a degree in on this point.
Merely reading a statute, without reading the cases or the knowledge of how it works, is tantamount to what prison-lawyers do.
You are correct on one point, the agenda is tentative and can change. It is allowed to change in non-substantive ways; that is, ways that do not offend due process. Your simplistic view that those concerned with Overland matters will already be at the meeting is as offensive to the Constitution as you can imagine. If that is the case, why publish any agenda at all, those concerned will already be there.
Since you quoted a statute, let's walk through it.
You state from the statute in your post:
"its tentative agenda, in a manner reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered". Not exactly iron clad language.
Well, this is fairly iron clad language. I point you to your words (or the words of the General Assembly) that the notice must be reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered. This is what defines what is allowed to be changed from the "tentative" agenda. If you make a substantive change so that the notice is not reasonably giving the public an idea of the matters to be considered, then it is no notice at all and, therefore violative of the statute. For example, adding an agenda item for an additional 3 feet of signage space into a zoning ordinance that is already on the agenda and part of the notice would probably not violate the statute. Adding a completely new City-wide sign ordinance that was not part of the published agenda would be illegal. Adding an ordinance certifying election results and swearing in the mayor..... sounds pretty substantive to me. Is there anything more important to government than the vote of the people or the sitting of its representatives?
I remember form past emails you have a rather dim view of lawyers and that is unfortunate. They are the ones that drafted this miraculous document that holds our society together and for which we fight everyday. But hey, to each his own.
OK Hairy, this may surprise you, but I see your point. I appreciate your explanation and example because it helped me look at this from a different angle.
So yes, I agree that if this change was made to that meeting, in all likelihood, it would have been in violation of that portion of the Sunshine law and that my analysis of this issue was likely wrong.
Now at the Council meeting it was said that the meeting scheduled to address tax issues on August 27th will be changed to include the swearing in of Mayor Schneider (I'm not sure if it will include nominating and voting on his replacement). However, I believe they could have called for a meeting this evening (without 24 hours notice) to do the swearing in based on 610.020 #4. Having not done so at this point I don't think they can do the same for later day as the certification was completed over 24 hours ago. Scheduling any later meeting would be questionable in my opinion since proper notice could have been given.
However, I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me on that as well.
As for the 20 years of legal practice, law degree, etc, etc, I'm sorry, but I have to take that with a grain of salt on the internet. Anyone can say they are anything in an anonymous environment like this. For example, look at the number of mining engineers and experts that have suddenly popped up on blogs and forums lately.
I have a problem with the way the law is handled at times. Case in point would be the recent decision on the property tax issue. What that decision ultimately comes down to is that because someone wrongfully applied for and received a waiver for the County, they could not be held accountable when it comes to the election law. Now, I don't think that's right, be it legal or not.
My opinions of lawyers varies when it comes to the individual lawyer. When it comes to the practice of law however, I am not a fan, and I don't believe I have ever hidden that fact.
Man About Town,
It’s my first post in awhile; I’m a long time reader though.
Here are a few observations:
Switch to decaffeinated beverages.
Go back on your meds; they will smooth out the ups and downs in your life.
DO NOT urinate on electric fences, which will inhibit your ability to count to five with your shoes on.
I have run for the Ward 3 seat 2 times, not 3, and I am proud of both the efforts. I think I will run again because the senior Ward 3 councilperson is an embarrassment, but I would expect nothing less from a person who admitted in court to being a liar and a forger and should not be on the council in the first place(Kenny, this is not you is it?).
It is truly sad that you feel the need to post under other peoples on-line names. It’s childish, in mature … wait a minute, where talking about man about town, NEVERMIND!
Susie I think it's time to put the parental controls back on. I know it's alot to ask but as John Doe would say it's a blog not a democracy. Gravy perhaps you could get your rights back to assist it would probably help alleviate so much can you give it one more try got the Gipper?
Since you are taking it with a grain of salt, I guess you're calling me a liar b/c I have told you that I am a lawyer that has practiced in this area for many years. I suppose I just walked you through the concept of both substantive and procedural due process on complete luck.
I am not sure how you separate the practice of law from individual lawyers. In fact, it seems backwards. The more logical thought would be that you don't hold a grudge against the practice of law but certainly, like us all, do not repsect all lawyers individually.
As for the tax case, I read the opinion carefully. That result can be placed squarely on the shoulders of poor lawyering. The Judge was not given the evidence that he needed to make the case. That is not the Judge's fault, it is the fault of the lawyers bringing the case. How you can present a hearing where the whole issue is whether a particular man did or did not pay his taxes or was or was or was not a resident without calling that very man to the stand to ask him is incomprehensible. If you're afraid of his answer, you should depose him or maybe you shouldn't have brought the case in the first place. In any event, a good lawyer could have won the case if the correct evidence was elicited.
So in the end, you think I am a liar but it doesn't matter if you think I am a lawyer or not. I have never questioned your claim of miltary service. I believe that you did serve in the military. You suited up and fought for the most miraculous legal document ever drafted by lawyers and for that we thank you.
Why is Boone dancing with the darkside now?
Has Hermans head been offered up in executive session yet? It's coming.
I get people that don't even know me so upset that I only have to post every few months.
Suzy, seriously, can anyone really spell that poorly? Time for another class.
OS, be careful, maybe Eric Tolen has access to a computer!
I didn't call you a liar. I merely said that I can't take what you say at face value when you consider the number of people on the internet who pretend to be all manor of things.
You could very well be a lawyer, I have no idea.
As for your logic on the lawyer issue, I disagree. Like any other profession, there are good and bad professionals. I choose not to judge any group as a whole, I choose to judge individuals based on their individual actions.
However, I am not a fan of legal technicalities. The practice of law is not about right or wrong, justice, etc. It is about winning or loosing and finding any way, including twisting legal language to the point where it's nearly unrecognizable in order to win. I don't like it, but I accept it as a fact of life.
You are welcome to question anything about me that you like. I choose to put my name and face behind what I do and say, so researching my background should not be too hard (especially for someone with 20 years of legal contacts). I'd recommend you start by trying to acquire my DD214s.
Whatever your issue with me, personally, I find it is no longer worth my time. You seem bent on twisting everything I say to fit it into your viewpoint. Perhaps that's the 20 years of legal practice at work.
Post a Comment
<< Home