Channel 4 Report Big Pay Day

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#24 May 30, 2013
Names Named wrote:
<quoted text>According to the administration, Moss was guilty and that's why they paid Boone 55K. So by that reckoning, Shockey must be 10 times as guilty as the payout was nearly 10 times as much at a half a million dollars.
Now that is an assumption. Also, in the Moss thing they never said he was guilty. They said the insurance told them to do it. They never said he was guilty for the reason for the settlement. Please get your facts straight and quit making stuff up hoping it sticks.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#25 May 30, 2013
Names Named wrote:
<quoted text>According to the administration, Moss was guilty and that's why they paid Boone 55K. So by that reckoning, Shockey must be 10 times as guilty as the payout was nearly 10 times as much at a half a million dollars.
Too bad you have to make that allegation from an anonymous proxy. Scared of a libel suit if they track you down?
Again

Arnold, MO

#26 May 30, 2013
This in not about assumptions, anonymous proxies, not fear of libel suits. This is not about Boone or Moss, it is about the Ott case and the failure of management to take proper action on a complaint of sexual harassment. It is about the Big Payday,$450,000 that went to Officer Ott. Care to comment about that issue?

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#27 May 30, 2013
Again wrote:
This in not about assumptions, anonymous proxies, not fear of libel suits. This is not about Boone or Moss, it is about the Ott case and the failure of management to take proper action on a complaint of sexual harassment. It is about the Big Payday,$450,000 that went to Officer Ott. Care to comment about that issue?
Nope because unlike you I don't assume facts not in evidence.
Again

Arnold, MO

#28 May 30, 2013
There are many facts, you just refuse to acknowledge them. Please stop showing your ignorance, it is very unbecoming.
This in not about assumptions, anonymous proxies, not fear of libel suits. This is not about Boone or Moss, it is about the Ott case and the failure of management to take proper action on a complaint of sexual harassment. It is about the Big Payday,$450,000 that went to Officer Ott. Care to comment about that issue?

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#29 May 30, 2013
Again wrote:
There are many facts, you just refuse to acknowledge them. Please stop showing your ignorance, it is very unbecoming.
This in not about assumptions, anonymous proxies, not fear of libel suits. This is not about Boone or Moss, it is about the Ott case and the failure of management to take proper action on a complaint of sexual harassment. It is about the Big Payday,$450,000 that went to Officer Ott. Care to comment about that issue?
Nope because unlike you I am not assuming facts not in evidence and I am not trying to purposefully twist the truth.
Reality Check

Arnold, MO

#30 May 30, 2013
The truth is the Officer Ott filed a SEXUAL DISCRIMININATION complaint with the Arnold Police department and she and her lawyers have NOW walked away with $450,000! The officer involved in the complaint is still working with the APD and his superior officer the Chief is still collecting $140,000+ per year to run not only the police department, but even more employees! Something is rotten and stinking up Arnold!

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#31 May 30, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
The truth is the Officer Ott filed a SEXUAL DISCRIMININATION complaint with the Arnold Police department and she and her lawyers have NOW walked away with $450,000! The officer involved in the complaint is still working with the APD and his superior officer the Chief is still collecting $140,000+ per year to run not only the police department, but even more employees! Something is rotten and stinking up Arnold!
No, we voted that out in the last election. If you don't like it here then I hear Perryville is open with their meeting...so open that they might get sued.
Reality Check

Arnold, MO

#32 May 30, 2013
Yes!
The truth is the Officer Ott filed a SEXUAL DISCRIMININATION complaint with the Arnold Police department and she and her lawyers have NOW walked away with $450,000! The officer involved in the complaint is still working with the APD and his superior officer the Chief is still collecting $140,000+ per year to run not only the police department, but even more employees! Something is rotten and stinking up Arnold!

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#33 May 30, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
Yes!
The truth is the Officer Ott filed a SEXUAL DISCRIMININATION complaint with the Arnold Police department and she and her lawyers have NOW walked away with $450,000! The officer involved in the complaint is still working with the APD and his superior officer the Chief is still collecting $140,000+ per year to run not only the police department, but even more employees! Something is rotten and stinking up Arnold!
Nope because we fired the real problem by voting them out in the last election.
Alternate Reality

Arnold, MO

#34 May 30, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
Yes!
The truth is the Officer Ott filed a SEXUAL DISCRIMININATION complaint with the Arnold Police department and she and her lawyers have NOW walked away with $450,000! The officer involved in the complaint is still working with the APD and his superior officer the Chief is still collecting $140,000+ per year to run not only the police department, but even more employees! Something is rotten and stinking up Arnold!
That does not mean what she alleged was proven. Any lawsuit could have gone either way. This kind of behavior is not acceptable in either side of this debate. Because it was alleged is not proof.
Reality Check

Arnold, MO

#35 May 30, 2013
Yeah right, insurance companies throw $450,000 at problems all the time. They would rather pay $450,000 and not fire the patrolman and the chief, than $2 Million? When $950,000 was awarded 4 people were fired and 15 were suspended, give me a break, this happens and they both keep their job? You know the city attorney said that it was like gnawing a limb off. Sorry, the patrolman and the chief need to find another line of work. The chief should not be in a supervisory position of the police department nor should he have the added responsibility of running City Hall. Why don't you ask a few more citizens what they think about forking over $450,000? I'm sure you will get a lot of negative answers.
Citizens are pleased as punch(sarcasm) because the council is allowing a liquor store to be put in right next to the school. Rocket scientists, every one of them. They have the option of not issuing the liquor license, if they haven't already done so. This way maybe the kids can stop by and pick up their beer and wine on the way home from school.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#36 May 31, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
Yeah right, insurance companies throw $450,000 at problems all the time. They would rather pay $450,000 and not fire the patrolman and the chief, than $2 Million? When $950,000 was awarded 4 people were fired and 15 were suspended, give me a break, this happens and they both keep their job? You know the city attorney said that it was like gnawing a limb off. Sorry, the patrolman and the chief need to find another line of work. The chief should not be in a supervisory position of the police department nor should he have the added responsibility of running City Hall. Why don't you ask a few more citizens what they think about forking over $450,000? I'm sure you will get a lot of negative answers.
Citizens are pleased as punch(sarcasm) because the council is allowing a liquor store to be put in right next to the school. Rocket scientists, every one of them. They have the option of not issuing the liquor license, if they haven't already done so. This way maybe the kids can stop by and pick up their beer and wine on the way home from school.
We fired the real problem by voting them out in the last election.

And not issuing licenses for some reasons will get the city in legal trouble. So you are proposing we risk another lawsuit while chastising the current legal bill? You don't make any sense.
Reality Check

Arnold, MO

#37 May 31, 2013
State law says no liquor licenses to be issued within 100 feet of a school unless granted prior written permission from the city council. All surrounding neighbors within 100 feet should be notified in writing at least 10 days in advance. That means, no council approval, no license, per state law.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#39 May 31, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
State law says no liquor licenses to be issued within 100 feet of a school unless granted prior written permission from the city council. All surrounding neighbors within 100 feet should be notified in writing at least 10 days in advance. That means, no council approval, no license, per state law.
They are well past the 100 feet of the actual school building technically. Grow a brain.
Reality Check

Arnold, MO

#40 May 31, 2013
State law says no liquor licenses to be issued within 100 feet of a school unless granted prior written permission from the city council. All surrounding neighbors within 100 feet should be notified in writing at least 10 days in advance. That means, no council approval, no license, per state law. Do you have a tape measure? It is right next door. The school grounds abut the liquor store grounds. The city council has the ability to require a 300 feet distance!

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#41 May 31, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
State law says no liquor licenses to be issued within 100 feet of a school unless granted prior written permission from the city council. All surrounding neighbors within 100 feet should be notified in writing at least 10 days in advance. That means, no council approval, no license, per state law. Do you have a tape measure? It is right next door. The school grounds abut the liquor store grounds. The city council has the ability to require a 300 feet distance!
They have the ability but chose not to do that. You're grasping at straws again. Aren't you the one that yells to keep it on subject and here YOU are off topic. Guess it only applies when it suits you. Should we bring up if sitting elected officials should be forced to resin for not paying their personal property ON TIME since you are off topic yourself?
Check Reality

Arnold, MO

#42 May 31, 2013
Were surrounding property owners informed in writing ten days in advance? Did they get written permission from the city council? The First Baptist Church of Arnold would be thrilled to know that Mayor Ron Counts could have swayed the council to deny this liquor license. If it hasn't already been issued he could still do so!

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#43 May 31, 2013
Check Reality wrote:
Were surrounding property owners informed in writing ten days in advance? Did they get written permission from the city council? The First Baptist Church of Arnold would be thrilled to know that Mayor Ron Counts could have swayed the council to deny this liquor license. If it hasn't already been issued he could still do so!
Ever hear of separation of church and state? Seems like you only use the constitution when it is convenient to you. Too bad you feel you have to attack people's personal lives by bringing up their religion instead of sticking to the facts. And if they would have denied the license it would have cost the city in litigation for having no reason. Thought you were against unnecessary litigation but now you seem to be for it by your response. Make up your mind. Flip flop, no wonder the voters fired you in the last election by voting you out.
Check Reality

Arnold, MO

#44 May 31, 2013
Just stating facts. If you belonged to First Baptist Church in Arnold, you would be upset that a liquor store will be located right next door to a school. You would also not like it if it could be prevented and the city council failed to do so. Imaginary threats of litigation is something that Mr. Sweeney uses to keep his minions in line.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arnold Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Michael jessup Fri Tracy 2
Where do the Afican Americans hang out in Arnol... (Aug '10) Fri Wake Up 38
News Lawsuit accuses municipalities of targeting the... Aug 22 VeeBee 6
What happened to Kimmswick? (Jan '06) Aug 13 Addit 790
Westward trails Aug 12 Edd 3
Is fenton a racist city Aug 11 Funny 7
Fox 2 News anna elise parks lookalike Stratford... Aug 10 bud man 7

Arnold Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Arnold Mortgages