Illegal Disbursement of Funds

Posted in the Imperial Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of157
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Big Question

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 1, 2013
 
Because the council is supposed to be a seven-member body, proposed motions fail unless they receive four members' votes. The council has had six members since Nov. 30, when Fifth Ward Councilwoman Helen Anthony vacated her seat. Three candidates are running to replace her: Tootie Burns, Mark Jones and Laura Nauser.

I wonder...if four affirmative votes is required in a seven member body in order to expend funds in Columbia,MO. wouldn't that hold true in the City of Arnold?
Letusnamenames

Vienna, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 1, 2013
 
Our council is supposed to be an eight member body, so it is either five votes or a majority of those present.
Big Question

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 1, 2013
 
An effort to have Independence voters decide in November whether to put fluoride in the city’s water died Monday on a tied City Council vote.

With Council Member Charlie Rich absent, the final vote was 3-3 on an ordinance to put the issue on the ballot. Voting in favor were Jason White, Jim Schultz and Mayor Ron Stewart, while Don Reimal, John Perkins and Renee Paluka voted no.

Another example in Missouri
Letusnamenames

Vienna, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

In the ordinances it says you have to have a quorum I five members to transact any business (chapter 2 article 2 sec. 2-37) but that the mayor may have the chief o police or his delegate serve in place of any absent council member.
Big Question

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 1, 2013
 
After city officials were divided over the move, there won't be any increase in the level of severance pay going to Ellisville City Manager Kevin Bookout if he is removed from his post without cause.

The city manager can be removed with or without cause and would get six months' salary in severance pay.

Proposed legislation had called for any city manager removed without cause or forced to resign to receive a lump sum cash payment equal to six months' salary and six months' individual health insurance premiums.

But a vote Dec. 5 on a first reading of the legislation resulted in a 3-3 tie, meaning the measure fails. Council members Michelle Murray, Matt Pirrello and Troy Pieper were in favor of the change, while council members Linda Reel and Dawn Anglin and Mayor Adam Paul were opposed. Council member Roze Acup was absent.
Big Question

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 1, 2013
 
Letusnamenames wrote:
In the ordinances it says you have to have a quorum I five members to transact any business (chapter 2 article 2 sec. 2-37) but that the mayor may have the chief o police or his delegate serve in place of any absent council member.
THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS!!!! Here is the complete ordinance:
Sec. 2-37.- Quorum.

Five (5) councilpersons elected shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. If at any meeting of the council a quorum is not present, the meeting shall stand adjourned until the next regular or special meeting; however, any two (2) members of the council, or the mayor, may have a call of the council and require the chief of police or his delegate to serve upon absent council members, anywhere in the State of Missouri, notice that the council is having a meeting and requesting their attendance; and should any one (1) council member or more of them fail to appear, the two (2) members making the call or the mayor may make and enter an order into the records of the city council stating which council member failed to appear although duly noticed to do so.
Letusnamenames

Vienna, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

That is EXACTLY what it says. Can you not read?
Big Question

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Let me translate for you. It says the mayor can require the chief or his delegate to serve notice that the council is having a meeting and request the members appearance. It says nothing about the chief being able to serve in place of a council member.
Letusnamenames

Vienna, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 1, 2013
 
The word serve there can have two meanings. You would have though someone would ha e written that better.

5 is a quorum. How many we're there last night?
Hmmm

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 1, 2013
 
Actually you would have thought someone would read it completely before jumping to conclusions!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 1, 2013
 
It looks as if seven were there, but Moss was not allowed to vote as he is named in the issue specifically. That is how they ended up with a tie that the mayor broke.

If there were seven people in the room and six voted, I am not understanding the question about the quorum.

Now the question is, will the city council end up paying off Mr. Moss also, or will this end up being in court anyway...

What happens to the settlement when Ms. Boone is drug into court? Sick feeling that this is not over, and there will be a lot more money involved for the Taxpayers of Arnold.
Hmmm

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

No, the question is, since the vote last night was not legal, what action is going to be taken now? It doesn't matter how many were there, it still requires FIVE votes to expend funds.
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Budget and expenditures, approval by ordinance, motion, or resolution required.

See: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0770...

77.105. The budget or ANY AUTHORIZATION to expend funds shall be approved by an ordinance, motion, or resolution that is approved by a majority of ALL THE MEMBERS ELECTED to the governing body.

Important words are capitalized. This is essentially a vote to expend funds, and has the same statutory threshold as an ordinance. In fact, the County Council passes them as ordinances per the Charter. That said, it is not about how many are present at the meeting, unlike a non-expenditure resolution, which is a simple majority of THOSE PRESENT. Expenditure authorizations require a quorum of the number of elected members, which is 8. This was the same issue faced by the City when Al Ems passed and Counts left the seat vacant for some 2 months, and the same reason why the 4-2 in favor vote in Fenton the other week to restrict pseudophedrine sales still failed. They also have 8 members, one whom resigned and the seat is vacant and one was absent. The statutory threshold to pass the measure is exactly the same, and because of that it failed, as it needed a 5th Council vote in the affirmative to pass.

It does not matter if you call it an ordinance, resolution or even a motion, they are all the same in this case because it expends funds, which is why the statute refers to "Budget and expenditures, approval by ordinance, motion, or resolution required"
Letusnamenames

Vienna, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

That is not what the ordinance states. It states that five are required to have a meeting it doesn't state how many yeas are required to expend funds.
Letusnamenames

Vienna, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Matt, where did you get your law degree? Just curious.

Then every resolution to allow the Mayor to enter I to contract should require five yeas since essentially they are authorizing the mayor to expend funds.
BlahBlahBlah

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

+1 Letusnamenames re: law degree!

What doofuses you armchair lawyers are!
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Letusnamenames wrote:
That is not what the ordinance states. It states that five are required to have a meeting it doesn't state how many yeas are required to expend funds.
You are talking about three different things here. The City has an ordinance, which aligns with state law regarding what constitutes a quorum at a meeting (this is for purposes of holding a meeting, not voting outcomes)

1. What Constitutes a "meeting" = quorum of the total body present
2. Non-expenditure Resolution or motion requires simple majority of members PRESENT, Mayor can break ties.
3. Ordinance or resolution with authorizes expenditures = Majority of elected members of the body in the affirmative (5 yeas in the case of Arnold)

So, if your argument is that our ordinance allows it, which I do not believe it does, and only refers to what constitutes a quorum at a meeting, then my response is that State Statute (77.105 RSMo clearly takes precedence and renders any such ordinance moot)
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Letusnamenames wrote:
Matt, where did you get your law degree? Just curious.
Then every resolution to allow the Mayor to enter I to contract should require five yeas since essentially they are authorizing the mayor to expend funds.
My JD, I do not have it yet, but did score 4's on both the AP Literature and AP Language Exams, so will proffer those as my credentials for literacy.

If you disagree with my opinion, would you please offer your interpretation of what 77.105 RSMo says? It is very clearly written with no ambiguity. If it does not say that a majority of all elected members (not present members) must approve, what does it say then?
Letusnamenames

Vienna, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Mar 1, 2013
 
What do the sections around it say? You all h e a HUGE habit of only taking the small piece that looks good but when the whole law is displayed it is clear that you all are wrong.

So post the whole law and not the section.
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

BlahBlahBlah wrote:
+1 Letusnamenames re: law degree!
What doofuses you armchair lawyers are!
I will challenge you as well Bill. If it does not say what I am stating it does, rather than just attacking my "credentials" (which I assure you, you know little about), please tell me where specifically you believe I am wrong in my understanding and what your interpretation of 77.105 RSMo is, and if you then argue you do not believe it is applicable here, why not? Are you capable of any kind of discourse which is not ad hominem attacks or disparagements?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of157
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
Imperial Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Imperial Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Imperial People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••