By Pauline Masson –
Citing “probable” zoning violations on a property at 313 East Orleans, owned by local builder Ray Gullet, Police Chief Scott Melies asked aldermen to deny Gullet a permit to build a new storage building on a different property.
In an unusual series of events Melies made the request at the September 20 board meeting as aldermen considered Gullet’s application for a conditional use permit to construct a storage building at 210 South Third Street.
Before addressing the board, Melies handed his laptop computer with the picture to an alderman to be circulated to other aldermen.
“One of my responsibilities as police chief is to manage the code enforcement in the city,” the chief said. “So this picture you see going around is a property that the person who is asking the city to approve a CUP tonight also owns in the city.”
“This piece of property is not in compliance with city maintenance codes. It’s probably not in compliance with zoning and some other outside storage kind of uses.,” Melies said. “So I would just tell you tonight that before we give a person a CUP on a new piece of property, I would ask that we try to reduce my work load on their other pieces of property.”
Caught off guard by the chief’s charge about violations on a property other than the one under consideration, Gullet filled out a speaker card so he could address the board. He said he had never been cited for a violation on the East Orleans property. He asked to see the photo that was circulated among aldermen, but Melies refused to allow him to view the photo. Speaking for the mayor, city attorney Bob Jones quickly backed the chief in denying Gullet the right to see the photo.
“That’s up to the chief. It’s his picture,” Jones said.
I don’t think so. The claim that a picture submitted to aldermen in a board meeting remained the property of the individual who submitted it and he could deny anyone’s right to view it seemed to fly in the face of Missouri Sunshine Law, which is pretty clear.
Sunshine Law stipulates that all records, regardless of what form they are kept in – and all meetings – are public records and available to the public.
Mayor Heather Filley said Melies was offering his opinions as a citizen. But that missed a couple of points. Here was the elected police chief, dressed in his uniform, addressing aldermen, identifying himself as the individual in charge of City code enforcement, submitting a picture that he wanted aldermen to consider in the course of city business.
There might be a gray area here. The attorney could have told Gullet that he could submit a sunshine request for the photo and it would be provided to him. But that is not what happened. Gullet was pretty well beat up. When he addressed the chief and asked if he had ever been cited, Attorney Jones again spoke for the mayor, raising his voice, he said, “Address your remarks to the board, sir..”
I should disclose here, that I requested a copy of the photo on Sept. 21 and City Clerk Kim Barfield sent me a copy.
But there is a bigger question here. What has happened to “due process” in Pacific?
Barfield told me that there is no written policy on the city responding to code violations. But in my twenty-year experience of attending meetings as the Pacific editor of The Missourian newspaper, I recall this issue coming up many, many, many time. The property owner’s right and the city’s procedure for dealing with the violation were discussed in detail.
The process was always the same. First, anyone suspected of a violation was to be notified in writing of the specific violation – not a “probable” violation, but a specific violation. The property owner was given a certain amount of time to correct the violation.
The zoning officer had authority to set the amount of time the property was given to correct the violation. Different people were given different amounts of time. But one thing was constant. If the violation was not corrected, the property owner would receive a summons to appear in municipal court, where the issue would be decided not by the aldermen or the police chief, but by the municipal judge.
Let me be clear, I am not claiming that there is no violation here. I am focused on how the builder was treated in a public meeting. If there is a violation, Ray Gullet deserves a specific citation of the violation and ample time to correct it before he is burned at the stake in a public meeting.
To single him out and attempt to punish him in a public city government meeting, and ask aldermen to prevent him from the use of a property he owns because of a probable violation on another property is unprecedented. The chief referred to the building materials stored in Gullet’s outdoor yard as trash.
Obviously agitated, Gullet pleaded with officials to tell him why they were targeting a property that he had operated for ten years with no citation for violation.
“Am I crazy? Am I wrong?” he asked. “Why is this being discussed in this meeting?”
“This is something you have to take up with the chief,” Mayor Filley said.
What?
Clearly Ray Gullet has a right to due process on the uses of his property, and he has right to the expectation of respect due any citizen appearing before the board of aldermen.
You will recall that I lobbied for voters to elect the police chief and for him to be free to run his department without interference from other officials. I continue to believe that is the best practice for Pacific. But as my southern grandmother used to say, this event gives me pause.
One of the things that prompted me to ask voters to remove the chief from the control of the mayor and city administrator was an incident over code violations. Two neighbors had identical illegal fences. The mayor and city administrator overrode the code enforcement officer and gave one property owner a year to replace the illegal fence and the neighboring property owner 30 days to replace the same fence.
I reasoned that an elected police chief, who was accountable to the citizens, would be fair to all citizens. But singling out a local builder in this fashion blew any semblance of fairness to the wind. In spire of the melee, the first reading, or preliminary approval, for the conditional use permit was completed.
I realize we have an inexperienced mayor and four inexperienced aldermen. Sara Gendron was absent from the meeting, so there were only three aldermen present for this. The two experienced aldermen also remained silent during this exchange. In their defense, the recently elected officials probably feel because of their lack of experience they have to rely on the city attorney and the police chief to guide them. But at some point common sense needs to prevail.
All meeting records are public. All violations deserve due process. And all citizens who appear before the board of aldermen deserve to be treated with respect.
I totally agree what’s fair for one is fair for all. I can drive through town and point out several citational offenses. Why pick on the builders who are trying to build Pacific up. Clean up,fix up and paint up. It seems our past lazy code enforcement is an invitation for the police chief to pick on the tax paying citizens. I think maybe focus on the renters, and give out fair warnings for owners to comply to whatever nuisances there is It’s all about someone needing the power but trust me Pacific doesn’t need the struggle It will definitely not be a smart decision come voting time for the citizens. The chief doesn’t own Pacific the citizens do. Let’s take back our town Power hungry officials can’t bully citizens to come around to their way of thinking !
I watched this online and was horrified at the police chief’s actions. He acted like a strange combination of a holier than thou official and a petulent little child. And the notion of not showing the picture to Mr Gullet when it is so obviously part of the public record Is deeply concerning.
Another glaring confirmation that we have, yet again (SIGH), put the wrong people in City Hall. It is absolutely vital that that those we elect will not stand quietly by and allow unacceptable behavior to continue in their midst, in order to preserve their comfort.
That absolutely none of the elected officials or private citizens present at that meeting had the integrity to stand up and confront this ridiculous display of arrogance cloaked in a badge is more concerning than I can put into words right now.
This is one more indication that this Police Chief does not know how to act in a respectable manor toward the public and other public officials in a open public forum, one that is being broadcast as an open professional meeting.
To bring to a public meeting such incomprehensible actions, with no backing of written violations, leads one to question his ability to perform his normal duties. His actions bring cause to wonder if he is still capable to operate effectively as a leader in an emergency situations.
At the last BOA meeting his “occupying uninhabitable structures” ordnance came under scrutiny. He apparently thought it would be a ‘done deal’ ,but it was referred to the Operations Committee. He became visible upset. He demanded in no uncertain terms that he be present at the Committee meeting so he could instruct the members in the need for his crime killing ordnance.
I will lean some what on my past 30+ years of working in municipal government and make this comparison.If an employee, and he is an employee by ordnance and by definition in the City Employee Handbook, acted in such threatening and condescending manor , in a public open forum, to his superiors immediate actions would be taken. He would go right to a step three discipline hearing, leading to possible suspension or termination. I think thirty days with out pay would give him time to think about how to behave in public meetings.
Is this how he would act towards the homeless and any property owner ? Is this how he would provide the due process he swore to uphold? Read Amos8:4-7 to find the consequences of trod-ding on the down trodden.
This is one of the weirdest things I have ever dealt with in my career? I want to take a lot I have owned for around 10 years and build a 30×40 garage on it similar to the one across the street and it’s turned out to be a very difficult situation. I do appreciate the fact that our elected officials are trying to maintain a standard but I feel in this situation I’m being targeted for some reason?
Mr. Gullet, everyone in that room knew what was taking place was inappropriate and egotistical at best. And everyone knew that you’d done nothing wrong.
The elected officials that sat on their hands at the meeting and allowed it to transpire failed to uphold their sworn duties, but they weren’t done there. The mayor then violated your civil rights — rather than risk the momentary ire of our nutjob police “chief”.
We’ve now seen some very bizarre behavior from Scott Melies, spanning multiple BOA meetings. When something is not right I tend to sense it instinctively – and to say my alarms and whistles are blaring loudly would be quite the understatement.
Ever since I was a kid, one of my passions in life has been taking note of folks around me that are of questionable ethics, and then tirelessly researching, observing, until I’ve built a solid case – then I provide all the data I’ve put together to the proper people and let them pull the curtain back on them. By That time I’m already moved on to something else.
…. I had decided several years ago to stop getting myself involved in things like this because it takes up so much of my personal time and energy. However, Chief Melies recent arrogant behavior has convinced me to make an exception.
Mr. Gullet , you are witnessing why it is so hard to make progress in Pacific . It’s not who you are, it’s who you know (or compensate) not what you need. Maybe you should have asked them to let you build a patio dining area on the street in front of your storage building ( with appropriate ‘compensation’ to the “Stevie’s”.
Let me first start my comment by stating that I am the Ward 2, newly elected Alderman, that sat there and watched/did nothing. Inexperience is a big part of that posture, but not the only point to be made. The Chief was speaking as a resident, not as the Chief of Police. I agree he should not have been in uniform, but is that illegal/not allowed? There’s the inexperience… I don’t know (but I will find out ASAP). Let’s say a different resident had made the exact same comments and provided a picture… this article wouldn’t exist. We said nothing because it was during public participation where residents can say almost anything they want… kind of the point of public comments, isn’t it?
Now I know in this case it was the Chief of Police, I completely understand the concern here, but we were told he was speaking as a resident, thus the silence. We have also been told public participation is for residents to comment on whatever they want. We are not to engage in an interactive discussion during that time (possibly shutting them down) and thus the “deer in the headlights” look people get from an Alderman when they are asking questions during their comments. We don’t respond, it is for comments. Was I told something incorrect? Maybe… we’ll see (refer to inexperienced again).
The article states “Photo of a construction material storage lot at 313 East Orleans that Police Chief Scott Melies used Sept. 20 to convince aldermen to deny builder Ray Gullet a permit to construct a storage building on another property.” This is NOT accurate. It should say “tried to convince” at best. There was no vote taken at the meeting and it wasn’t on the agenda to vote. This was the first reading. No discussions take place with Alderman. It IS a time for residents to comment on the proposed permit, nothing more. The Chief did NOT convince this Alderman one way or the other at the meeting with or without the picture.
To Nick Cozby: On your comment about putting the wrong people in City Hall again… I am the only person that actually ran against someone for Alderman. Your Ward (Ward 3) and Ward 1 ran unopposed (and then the other Alderman for Ward 1 was appointed after a resignation). Hard to make the right choice when you have no choice! If you elected the wrong people again, why not run for Alderman? Show us how it’s done. That’s a sincere comment, not a smart-ass comment. I am completely serious. You just need to register at City Hall for the April 2023 election – very easy to do. I ran because our current board was running the city as they wanted and not how the residents wanted it run (in my opinion of course). I’ve only lived in Pacific for just over 2 years. Do I really have time to be an Alderman? No. I have a full-time job and plenty that requires my attention at home when I’m not working. Do I take vacation time to conduct Alderman business/duties? Yes. I’m doing my best to get up to speed and learn as fast as I can. I respond to every resident that reaches out to me and vote as a representative, not a ruler. If that’s not good enough for you and others, please run for Alderman in your Ward and my Ward can vote me out AS EVERY RESIDENT SHOULD if I am not performing my duties as I should. It’s the way our government is supposed to work! I would also invite you to attend the Board meetings and be one of the residents you’re looking for that stands up and shuts someone down if they get out of line (you’ll most likely be asked to leave though as you can’t shut someone down making a public comment). I think you will realize it’s a little different when you are there in the moment. Maybe you do attend and I haven’t met you yet… would love to talk some time if you’re there even not being in my Ward. No matter, we need more people to attend meetings or at least reach out and tell your Alderman what you want/expect. The only way we’ll know.
FYI to all. The Police Chief does not report to the Alderman. I’m sure most knew that, but I wanted that to be clear.
James,
Chief Melies did NOT speak as a resident. He spoke as the chief of police. He introduced himself as the chief of police, saying, “One of my responsibilities as police chief is to manage the code enforcement in the city.”
He made himself part of the governing process, saying, “before WE give a person a CUP on a new piece of property, I would ask that WE try to reduce MY work load on their other pieces of property. Please consider this before WE pass this for OUR first reading. He was speaking as a city official.
As to what you could have done: When the chief introduced himself as the chief, after you had been told he was speaking as a resident, you could have said, “Point of Order,” I thought Scott Melies was speaking as a resident – not as the police chief.”
When the mayor said, ” I believe chief was expressing concern as a citizen,” you could have questioned that as well. You could have said. “Point of Order Madam Mayor, but he said he was speaking as the police chief.”
When Mr. Gullet asked to see the picture presented to aldermen, you could have asked,”Why can’t Mr. Gullet see the picture?”
I don’t know who told you that aldermen are not allowed to engage speakers, but that’s malarky. It is the Board of Aldermen meeting – not the mayor’s meeting, the city attorney’s meeting, the city administrator’s meeting, or the police chief’s meeting. Where is it written that public comments are “just for residents to comment on whatever they want?” Most public comments in board meetings – and clearly the chief’s comments about Mr. Gullet’s property – are direct communication to the aldermen and they are intended to persuade aldermen to a certain action (or inaction). Speakers are talking to aldermen directly and hoping to convince you of something. Of course aldermen can ask questions when a speaker is trying to persuade them to a certain action. As an alderman you could have addressed a question to chief Melies and asked him to clarify Mr. Gullet’s claim that the property had never been cited. You could also have asked, “Is it accurate that this property has never been cited?” He is the police chief. When he said the property violated maintenance codes, you could have asked “what codes?”
Your discontent with the critique of the meeting leads one to wonder, what do you see as your role when a member of the public comes before you with an appeal? Do you not believe that there is a serious argument there. Wasn’t that one of your reasons for running for the board because it appeared aldermen did not listen to citizen protests?.
I’ll give you the “tried.” Tried is what the chief did. Using his power and authority as chief of police he TRIED to convince aldermen to deny a property owner a CUP because of a “probable” violation on another property – which appeared to deny Mr. Gullet the right to due process on something as simple as a code violation.
Your comment, “Let’s say a different resident had made the exact same comments and provided a picture… this article wouldn’t exist,” is a bit off the mark, James. If another resident had made the exact same comments it would not have carried the weight of the police chief making the comments – but I would have demanded to see the picture.
And here is another point. A first reading is preliminary approval and when you sit silently and allow preliminary approval – that is city action. At one time Pacific aldermen made a motion and voted to complete the first reading. But attorney Jones said that wasn’t necessary. I question eliminating that practice because it seems to have convinced you that nothing was taking place. But it is action. You couldn’t have a second or final reading without a first reading.
And James, I have to tell you . . . I voted for you, not because of the subdivision you opposed, but because I was impressed with your speaking and reasoning skills. I believed that you would use your skills to TRY to influence your fellow aldermen to conduct city business in a manner in keeping with the needs, wishes, opinions, and rights of the citizens.
What the chief did was wrong. It was allowed. And you are part of the governing body that allowed it. You need to toughen up.
Pauline,
I feel like I need to address your comments. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I could have done a lot of things differently in that meeting and thus my comment about someone being an Alderman and actively participating in the meeting and it being different than having the time to figure out what should have been done after the fact. That is in NO WAY saying that is what your comments are… just stating that I always have thoughts after the “live” meeting and things I could have/should have done differently.
“Chief Melies did NOT speak as a resident.” – We were told prior to the meeting that he was. A major point I tried to make in my previous comment, but obviously failed. Agree with it or not, that is what we were told and why nothing was said (by me and I assume the other Alderman). Going back and watching the meeting recording I did hear the Mayor introduce him as the Chief when he was making his comments. Something I didn’t “catch” at the live meeting.
“…you could have said, “Point of Order,” I thought Scott Melies was speaking as a resident – not as the police chief.” “When the mayor said, ” I believe chief was expressing concern as a citizen,” you could have questioned that as well.” – No disagreement here Pauline. Again, in hindsight I would have done several things differently.
“When Mr. Gullet asked to see the picture presented to aldermen, you could have asked, ”Why can’t Mr. Gullet see the picture?”” – This was already answered for us by the City Attorney (the legal expert in the room) and thus there was no reason to ask the question. Again, I could have done something different, but I expect the City Attorney to be correct when he asserts himself.
“I don’t know who told you that aldermen are not allowed to engage speakers, but that’s malarky.” – I will question this openly in the next meeting. I hate to go back to inexperience yet again, but it is. I try not to overstep. I was told this and maybe it was wrong. I haven’t had a need to test that until now. I did some research a couple of months ago and found zero examples where a board/council are allowed to interact (I never found a prohibition either). Regardless of what I found or was told, I know WE (the Board) can change the way public participation is handled so that’s always an option and something I have already spoken to other about.
“Your discontent with the critique of the meeting leads one to wonder, what do you see as your role when a member of the public comes before you with an appeal?” – Discontent? That wasn’t discontent… I was responding to what I believed were questions or comments that shouldn’t be one-sided and that residents would like answers to. I was also responding to a resident that had an issue with me, as a newly elected Alderman. To answer your question, whether a resident comes to me directly outside of the meeting or in the meeting I ALWAYS consider what is said and their concerns. If nothing else proves my point here, my negative vote (the only negative vote) on the rezoning of the Alt property should demonstrate this.
“Your comment, “Let’s say a different resident had made the exact same comments and provided a picture… this article wouldn’t exist,” is a bit off the mark, James.” – AGREED. I understand the difference…
“And here is another point. A first reading is preliminary approval and when you sit silently and allow preliminary approval – that is city action.” – We’ll have to disagree on this point. I believe and have been told that an item is introduced at one meeting to allow the public time to research/comment before a vote is possibly taken at a second meeting. This is another item I will have confirmed at the next meeting.
“And James, I have to tell you . . . I voted for you, not because of the subdivision you opposed, but because I was impressed with your speaking and reasoning skills. I believed that you would use your skills to TRY to influence your fellow aldermen to conduct city business in a manner in keeping with the needs, wishes, opinions, and rights of the citizens.” – And I thank you for your vote and faith in me. If I have let you down, I am truly sorry. I honestly don’t feel that I have, but that’s an opinion and I always say perception is reality. If you believe I have failed, then I have.
“You need to toughen up.” – This is not an area I suffer in. If you knew me better, you would know this. I am learning and I never try to push a bad position. Once I know I am right I am the toughest person in the room… time will prove this one way or the other.
James,
On your comments about responding to citizens by considering their concerns – my point in the first article and in the meeting is that when individuals come to the meeting to address aldermen they are bringing points that they want you to consider in your decision making. You could say, “okay. that’s your concern, I get it.” Or you might say, “Wait a minute, that’s not the information I have. Let’s clarify that. Let’s confirm this point or that point.”
Your comment that the attorney was the legal authority in the room on who owned the picture doesn’t cut it. You need to get yourself a copy of the Missouri Sunshine law and a copy of Roberts Rules of Orders. Aldermen have voted to run meeting by Roberts Rules. It’s just a guide, not carved in stone, but spells out how members of the body can disagree with the chair – or the city attorney. More than once, I have asked Bob Jones to cite the sate statute that he is using for the advice he is giving aldermen. He is not God. He is just giving his legal opinion. And, like you he is acting from the moment. It is still the Board of Aldermen meeting and it is aldermen who bear the responsibility of their action or inaction.
Thanks for your thoughts and the information Pauline. I do have both the Roberts Rules of Order and the Missouri Sunshine Law books… just an FYI.
James,
Whether you would see any way or inclination to act on it, It seems to me that you should be able to conclude that the photo of Ray Gullet’s storage yard that Chief Melies showed to the aldermen during his presentation was a pubic record. The morning after the meeting, I emailed Kim Barfield, city clerk who is required by state law to make all public records available to the public.I asked her for a copy of the picture. She sent it to me within minutes and without comment. I don’t know whether she had to get it from him or whether she had it as part of the minutes of the meeting.. She knows her job. It was a public record. As you say, just FYI.
James,
Am I understanding that you disagree that a first reading of an ordinance is city action? Yes, it does serve to give citizens fair warning of upcoming final approval of a law. But it is a necessary board of alderman action that is part of the process of passing an ordinance.
On your comments about responding to citizens by considering their concerns – my point in the first article and in the meeting is that when individuals come to the meeting to address aldermen they are bringing points that they want you to consider in your decision making. You could say, “okay. that’s your concern, I get it.” Or you might say, “Wait a minute, that’s not the information I have. Let’s clarify that. Let’s confirm this point or that point.”
Your comment that the attorney was the legal authority in the room on who owned the picture doesn’t cut it. You need to get yourself a copy of the Missouri Sunshine law and a copy of Roberts Rules of Orders. Aldermen have voted to run meeting by Roberts Rules. It’s just a guide, not carved in stone, but spells out how members of the body can disagree with the chair – or the city attorney. More than once, I have asked Bob Jones to cite the sate statute that he is using for the advice he is giving aldermen. He is not God. He is just giving his legal opinion. And, like you he is acting from the moment. It is still the Board of Aldermen meeting and it is aldermen who bear the responsibility of their action or inaction.
Hi James,
I made no statements criticizing you individually, and I felt based on the context of the remainder of my post that would it would be evident to whom my critique was aimed. It was not @ an Alderman.
That said, I would hope that in the future when you encounter reasonable criticisms in the public discourse, the first order of business would be some introspection rather than suggesting we attempt to unseat you as Alderman.
State and federal courts have long held that councilmembers and aldermen CANNOT be held personally liable for torts resulting from their official actions, so long as those actions were made in good faith—that is, without willful or malicious intent to do harm.
Perhaps you should enlighten the city “attorney”.
One board meeting last year in early June we witnessed the latest of “don’t interact with them”, meaning ‘ during public presentation’. It was related to me by a past board member that this was an instruction given to the Board by a City official. This happened at the first Board meeting after P&Z passed the Brush Creek deal under duress. A comment was made by a City official at that P&Z meeting “that you have to allow it ( the subdivision construction) if it fits the zoning or you can be personally sued”. This comment was made after two had voted ‘no’ , there was a pause and an off the mike discussion, after which ‘no’ votes were changed to an unanimous ‘yes’.
I can see the usefulness of no public/ board back and forth discussion at this time of public presentation, but to not allow simple questions ( allowed by the mayors judgement) seems extreme and disrespectful to the presenter.
Its disrespectful to the aldermen to pressure them to not address presenters. Presentations are made at these meetings for one reason, to give aldermen the information they need to make decisions. To suggest that aldermen cannot ask for clarification, more information, or proof of what the presenter is asking them to consider is ridiculous. The aldermen are the judge of what they need to know in order to make decisions. A board of aldermen meeting is not a court case where a judge (city attorney or mayor) can say, that discussion is not allowed. Aldermen need to know what they need to know. OR they can just sit silently and let the city attorney, police chief and/or mayor feed them what they want them to know.
Anyone can be “personally sued” at any time for anything. That means absolutely nothing. Can someone file suit against you? Sure! Would it be immediately dismissed with prejudice? Absolutely.
Hi Henry –
State and federal courts have long held that councilmembers and aldermen CANNOT be held personally liable for torts resulting from their official actions, so long as those actions were made in good faith—that is, without willful or malicious intent to do harm.
Perhaps you should enlighten the city “attorney”.
Anybody that thought Melies spoke as a citizen has surely drank the kool-aid. Now they may have been told ahead of time that he was speaking as a citizen, (whether by design or mistake) but he clearly wasn’t, after asserting he was the Chief and his job duties.
Mr Cleeve actually revealed several flaws in the city government. Roth and the attorney tell the mayor and the alderman what to do and what they want them to know. If they engage too much with whoever is up there speaking or each other.(some may know more than others) Chances are information may come out that Roth, the attorney or mayor don’t want known. So the best thing for new Alderman or even the experienced ones is to question why they can’t talk and ask questions of the people addressing them. I figured it was an act of intimidation not talking to the speakers. You have about a dozen people staring at you either without an expression, or I have seen smirks.
Alderman CUT THE PUPPET STRINGS in Roth, the attorney and the mayors hands. Ask why, take the initiative to research. Don’t accept what their agenda is.
People. Go to meetings. Ask questions. Demand answers.
Karla,
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. I think that is what is happening. Someone at city hall is telling the new aldermen how to be aldermen – when not to speak, not to interact, not to ask questions during THEIR meeting but sit still like good children and let the grownups run the city. It’s scary. I can’t quite scope out who these new aldermen would be so in awe of that they would go along with these silly instructions. But there is one saving grace. They are all intelligent people, effective in their careers and caring citizens. Sooner or later they will catch on that they are the ones in charge. Here’s hoping it is sooner.
Let’s not forget the caliber of people we are dealing with with regards to the city attorney and administrator. It was only a few short years ago that Steve Roth ordered a public works employee to drive a tractor to the city cemetery, and park it directly on top of the freshly interred grave of a deceased local citizen in order to prevent the Mayor’s competition from placing their gravestone.
When I asked Administrator Roth why he would do such an abhorrent thing, his response to me was, and I quote…
“Mayor Palmore specifically directed me to have equipment parked over a headstone in the cemetery, and to send Mr. Bruns a letter that had been previously drafted by the City Attorney. I complied with the Mayor’s directive. ”
Hopefully this helps you get a better understanding of the spineless urchins who have somehow wedged themselves into positions of power in our city hall. Think for yourself! Do what you feel is right – that’s why folks elected you to represent them. Not to fall into lockstep with the administrator or city attorney.