Florissant NEPOTISM
Hmmm

Florissant, MO

#21 Mar 13, 2013
anounomous wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr or whoever, "I have no empathy for", it seems you don't mind posting anounomously, just say'in.
Alos, Nepotism, is against the law in the public sector. Is that how you got your job?
Several of you need to learn the definition of "nepotism" according to MO law, like "Thomas T" explained it. In some cases the hiring of a person might be seen by some as unethical but that does not mean it is illegal.

Referring to your "Is that how you got your job?". I can't speak for the other guy but I sure as hell wouldn't turn down a good position just because I knew the person hiring. Or even if he or she were an in-law (which is not nepotism). Anyone in this economy who would turn down valid, legal employment just because someone else frowned on it, is a fool.
ok then

United States

#22 Mar 13, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
Several of you need to learn the definition of "nepotism" according to MO law, like "Thomas T" explained it. In some cases the hiring of a person might be seen by some as unethical but that does not mean it is illegal.
Referring to your "Is that how you got your job?". I can't speak for the other guy but I sure as hell wouldn't turn down a good position just because I knew the person hiring. Or even if he or she were an in-law (which is not nepotism). Anyone in this economy who would turn down valid, legal employment just because someone else frowned on it, is a fool.
OK, then let;s redefine it as Cronism.

That seems to fit.

When someone is in charge of the publics money, they are also responsible for the publics trust. When they hand out jobs willy nilly, to brothers, friends and inlaws, it's cronism and could be nepotism.

The point here is, Taxpayers money is at stake. If the person hired is not deserving, not skilled, and not qualified, it STINKS.

You can defend it, but, it still is not right.
Thomas T

Florissant, MO

#23 Mar 13, 2013
ok then wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, then let;s redefine it as Cronism.
That seems to fit.
When someone is in charge of the publics money, they are also responsible for the publics trust. When they hand out jobs willy nilly, to brothers, friends and inlaws, it's cronism and could be nepotism.
The point here is, Taxpayers money is at stake. If the person hired is not deserving, not skilled, and not qualified, it STINKS.
You can defend it, but, it still is not right.
It is indeed unethical to most peoples' thinking, but it is not illegal. Fortunately I am in a position now where I wouldn't take such a job. I do understand the other guy's take on it though. If you are out of work and your family is doing without then you gotta do what you gotta do, as long as it's legal. At least those people who get hired in such a manner are working (hopefully) and not on public assistance in the usual sense.

Maybe the people being hired are qualified, no one has proven or disproven that so passing judgment on anyone without having factual reason to do so IMO is wrong.

Personally it doesn't bother me because there are hundreds, probably thousands of people in the public and private sector who don't do their job. That's the way it has always been and always will be. Anyone who believes politicians/politics will ever again be based on honesty and trustworthiness is extremely naive. I just have to be responsible for my own actions and the consequences good or bad that results.

Just to clarify, the mayor for example could not award a city position to a sibling, parent, or blood relative who was disqualified under the 4th decendency law. That would be illegal, and I have no doubt that he as all politicians is well aware of the boundaries of doing such.
anon employee

Florissant, MO

#24 Mar 13, 2013
The question is, does this croney have the qualifications to do the job, and are the best person for the job? Or are they just getting the job as a political pay off or favor? I would hope the mayor does the right thing here. Only time will tell.
five sixty two

O Fallon, MO

#25 Mar 14, 2013
Fuss and holler all you want. It aint gonna do no good. 2015 is the election and Tom has it hands down. Thanks for playing though. Labor rules. You whiners dont.
Thomas T

Florissant, MO

#26 Mar 14, 2013
anon employee wrote:
The question is, does this croney have the qualifications to do the job, and are the best person for the job? Or are they just getting the job as a political pay off or favor? I would hope the mayor does the right thing here. Only time will tell.
That is definitely the question...whether or not any person hired is qualified for the position. There are so many factors that must be considered and if you are not privy to all the info then it is just supposition. Regardless of the circumstances, as I said previously all political venues are the same. People do get hired because they campaigned for a candidate, donated, etc. That has always been the case and always will be no matter what level of government it involves.

Having worked in HR for many years I know that what looks good on an application and/or resume doesn't mean the applicant is going to be able to handle the position. I have hired people who had less educational background and experience then applicants with more impressive resumes. If often turned out that the applicants that didn't appear to be "outstanding" on paper were the ones who were exceptional employees.

That's only one reason I don't get all "het up" when people start discussing favoritism in hiring. True nepotism in the public sector is, however, an entirely different matter.
inside info

United States

#27 Mar 14, 2013
Thomas T wrote:
<quoted text>
That is definitely the question...whether or not any person hired is qualified for the position. There are so many factors that must be considered and if you are not privy to all the info then it is just supposition. Regardless of the circumstances, as I said previously all political venues are the same. People do get hired because they campaigned for a candidate, donated, etc. That has always been the case and always will be no matter what level of government it involves.
Having worked in HR for many years I know that what looks good on an application and/or resume doesn't mean the applicant is going to be able to handle the position. I have hired people who had less educational background and experience then applicants with more impressive resumes. If often turned out that the applicants that didn't appear to be "outstanding" on paper were the ones who were exceptional employees.
That's only one reason I don't get all "het up" when people start discussing favoritism in hiring. True nepotism in the public sector is, however, an entirely different matter.
yada, yada, yada, quit trying to justify this. This hiring situation is an attempt by the mayor to hire and unqualified and unskilled daughter of the president of the council. It's simple, the mayor is buying the council persons loyalty. This position calls for a trained and skilled person, there are several that work for the city, but, aren't being considered or interviewed. This unskilled person is being brought in from the outside.

wouldn't be a problem, if protocol and good HR practices were followed, but, this job not posted, not interviewed for, and not open to others. It requires skills and education that this person does not have.

So, whether it is nepotism, or cronyism, or favoritism, one thing for sure, IT IS WRONG! And the Mayor should be called out on it.

The employees of Florissant should openly protest, as should the taxpayers.
Hmm

Florissant, MO

#28 Mar 14, 2013
inside info wrote:
<quoted text>
yada, yada, yada, quit trying to justify this. This hiring situation is an attempt by the mayor to hire and unqualified and unskilled daughter of the president of the council. It's simple, the mayor is buying the council persons loyalty. This position calls for a trained and skilled person, there are several that work for the city, but, aren't being considered or interviewed. This unskilled person is being brought in from the outside.
wouldn't be a problem, if protocol and good HR practices were followed, but, this job not posted, not interviewed for, and not open to others. It requires skills and education that this person does not have.
So, whether it is nepotism, or cronyism, or favoritism, one thing for sure, IT IS WRONG! And the Mayor should be called out on it.
The employees of Florissant should openly protest, as should the taxpayers.
The guy wasn't justifying anything, just making a statement. Since you are claiming the person hired isn't qualified please present evidence to the fact. You claim you have inside info, so let's have it! You do have proof she isn't qualified and others are, don't you?
pied piper syndrome

United States

#29 Mar 14, 2013
Hmm wrote:
<quoted text>
The guy wasn't justifying anything, just making a statement. Since you are claiming the person hired isn't qualified please present evidence to the fact. You claim you have inside info, so let's have it! You do have proof she isn't qualified and others are, don't you?
Go over the cliff with the rest of the rats.

Open your eyes.
Simple way to find out

United States

#30 Mar 14, 2013
bring it up in the public portion of the meeting at next council meeting. question the power.
follow the clues

United States

#31 Mar 14, 2013
Employee wrote:
Florissant – NEPOTISM and lack of LEADERSHIP – will things never change?
So the current mayor’s scorecard looks like this –
1. Pushed employees out the door some forced to retire.
2. Have hired close associates family members without publicly posting.
3. Bullied and intimidated residents with housing violations (trash cans and leaves).
4. Bullied and intimidated businesses for political contributions.
5. Overseen construction of a park amenity partially built on neighbors’ property.
6. Ordered Ameren UE to install lights on the front of St Ferdinand Shrine.
7. Shrine (private property) monthly electric bill paid by city taxpayers.
--Soon to be publicly disclosed --
8. Violated hiring practices – hiring COUNCIL PRESIDENT’S daughter for park programmer.
9. Has EEOC lawsuit filed from within against the city.
10. Has turned his back on the VETERANS of our city.
To be fair to those who believe our mayor is good and wonderful I welcome your comments. BUT please no lip service LIST the positives he has bestowed on to the city.
take a moment and discuss with current and past employees.
corruption rules in Florissant, and most employees are afraid for their jobs. Union bosses control the police department.
Hmmm

Florissant, MO

#32 Mar 14, 2013
pied piper syndrome wrote:
<quoted text>
Go over the cliff with the rest of the rats.
Open your eyes.
You need to decide which side you are taking. Where's the answer to the question? You claim you have inside info (please don't try to pretend you aren't the same guy)at least post some of the particulars. Posting the work history of the woman, which you should have if you have "info" would not be illegal.

In regard to your "follow the clues". No proof has been given there either. What's to prove the "employee' isn't trying to get pay back for being disciplined? Or maybe he or she wanted the job and is sore because they didn't get it.

There has been absolutely no documentation to the charges made so one can only conclude there is none. Anytime someone responds with silly juvenile comments it is a sure sign there is no foundation for their allegations. Persons with proof of their claims have no problem showing that proof. Persons who are just making accusations avoid the question(s) and/or respond as you did. childishly.
mymy

Florissant, MO

#33 Mar 14, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to decide which side you are taking. Where's the answer to the question? You claim you have inside info (please don't try to pretend you aren't the same guy)at least post some of the particulars. Posting the work history of the woman, which you should have if you have "info" would not be illegal.
In regard to your "follow the clues". No proof has been given there either. What's to prove the "employee' isn't trying to get pay back for being disciplined? Or maybe he or she wanted the job and is sore because they didn't get it.
There has been absolutely no documentation to the charges made so one can only conclude there is none. Anytime someone responds with silly juvenile comments it is a sure sign there is no foundation for their allegations. Persons with proof of their claims have no problem showing that proof. Persons who are just making accusations avoid the question(s) and/or respond as you did. childishly.
And thank you Mr.Schildroth.
Employee

Florissant, MO

#34 Mar 14, 2013
Hmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to decide which side you are taking. Where's the answer to the question? You claim you have inside info (please don't try to pretend you aren't the same guy)at least post some of the particulars. Posting the work history of the woman, which you should have if you have "info" would not be illegal.
In regard to your "follow the clues". No proof has been given there either. What's to prove the "employee' isn't trying to get pay back for being disciplined? Or maybe he or she wanted the job and is sore because they didn't get it.
There has been absolutely no documentation to the charges made so one can only conclude there is none. Anytime someone responds with silly juvenile comments it is a sure sign there is no foundation for their allegations. Persons with proof of their claims have no problem showing that proof. Persons who are just making accusations avoid the question(s) and/or respond as you did. childishly.
Keith, you do not need to justify anything here. After the Atty. verified (there was a need to post the opening) than the mayor did so. There was a dog and pony show for the public proving that a process did take place, keeps everything clean. We all know that if you scratch my back - I will scratch yours. It is how the world works today so do not try to deny it. Don't compound matters by adding a lie.
Mymy

Florissant, MO

#35 Mar 14, 2013
Employee wrote:
<quoted text>
Keith, you do not need to justify anything here. After the Atty. verified (there was a need to post the opening) than the mayor did so. There was a dog and pony show for the public proving that a process did take place, keeps everything clean. We all know that if you scratch my back - I will scratch yours. It is how the world works today so do not try to deny it. Don't compound matters by adding a lie.
But she must be qualified she's my daughter. Just look how qualified I am as council president duh.
Thomas T

Florissant, MO

#36 Mar 15, 2013
Employee wrote:
<quoted text>
Keith, you do not need to justify anything here. After the Atty. verified (there was a need to post the opening) than the mayor did so. There was a dog and pony show for the public proving that a process did take place, keeps everything clean. We all know that if you scratch my back - I will scratch yours. It is how the world works today so do not try to deny it. Don't compound matters by adding a lie.
I don't know who "Keith" is and I sure don't know how you would. But, what lie did the guy (assuming it's a guy) state. I've read the post a couple of times and all I see is he or she asking a valid question about proving the charges. What's wrong with that? I certainly would not take an anonymous posters claims as truth. Maybe it is, maybe not. If it is true, that the person any person) is not qualified to do a job it should be easy to validate such a claim. Especially when the poster claims to have inside information. I don't know what is true and what isn't and as a taxpayer I have a right to question such allegations just as the OP has a right to state his views.

So why is the opposition afraid to post the facts? Why are you resorting to name calling and other juvenile behavior? In my posts I agreed with you that all politics are the "scratch my back.." kind. That's the reality of life in general. You can suck it up and get on with your life or you can moan and groan and feel sorry for yourself.
readplease

Florissant, MO

#37 Mar 15, 2013
Boy are you an uniformed person. Maybe people wouldn't call you names if you weren't such an idiot. Keith is the council president and the job went to his relative before it was posted (for all employees)is what is being asserted here. I sure hope you don't vote in elections.
Thomas T

Florissant, MO

#38 Mar 15, 2013
readplease wrote:
Boy are you an uniformed person. Maybe people wouldn't call you names if you weren't such an idiot. Keith is the council president and the job went to his relative before it was posted (for all employees)is what is being asserted here. I sure hope you don't vote in elections.
Really? So someone makes a post referring to "Keith" and there are no posts with the name "Keith" as a heading but we are suppose to know who it is referring to. Why? Is the council president the only person in society named Keith? It would seem logical that anyone wishing to identify someone would use their Christian and their surname and/or position instead of just assuming everyone knew who they were referring to.

Still all that has been said here is accusations. No proof that the job was awarded before it was listed. No proof that the person getting the job is unqualified, No proof about any of the allledged improprieties. So, as has been said people resort to name calling when they cannot back up their allegations.

All you need do is show the documentation to validate your claims. Should be easy enough. Of course if you can't, if all you are capable of doing is resorting to school yard comments it is reasonable to assume you have nothing to verify your gripes.
The Real Thomas T

Florissant, MO

#39 Mar 15, 2013
Thomas T wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? So someone makes a post referring to "Keith" and there are no posts with the name "Keith" as a heading but we are suppose to know who it is referring to. Why? Is the council president the only person in society named Keith? It would seem logical that anyone wishing to identify someone would use their Christian and their surname and/or position instead of just assuming everyone knew who they were referring to.
Still all that has been said here is accusations. No proof that the job was awarded before it was listed. No proof that the person getting the job is unqualified, No proof about any of the allledged improprieties. So, as has been said people resort to name calling when they cannot back up their allegations.
All you need do is show the documentation to validate your claims. Should be easy enough. Of course if you can't, if all you are capable of doing is resorting to school yard comments it is reasonable to assume you have nothing to verify your gripes.
Ok, wiseguy get another moniker. Let's clear this up, shall we. I don't give a rat's ass who gets hired or for what. I don't care if the entire city is staffed by cousins, aunts, uncles, wives, husbands...whomever!

I care about the fact that just about everyday another violent crime occurs here. That people who work for what they have are having it stolen by lowlifes. That you have to be careful everytime you go out of your home to take a walk or whatever.

So take your politico rhetoric and put it where it fits!
Readplease

Garden City, MI

#40 Mar 15, 2013
The Real Thomas T wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, wiseguy get another moniker. Let's clear this up, shall we. I don't give a rat's ass who gets hired or for what. I don't care if the entire city is staffed by cousins, aunts, uncles, wives, husbands...whomever!
I care about the fact that just about everyday another violent crime occurs here. That people who work for what they have are having it stolen by lowlifes. That you have to be careful everytime you go out of your home to take a walk or whatever.
So take your politico rhetoric and put it where it fits!
Did you read the heading of this forum? N-e-p-o-t-i-s-m. Does that help? Make sure you keep your scared self home on election day please. I for one would really have a great day if you told me you don't vote because it's a waste of time. In closing... Got fu@k yourself.

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.

Overland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Black Lives Matter* (Oct '15) 2 hr deeze big nutz 2,058
Prop P Scam alert 2 hr turnt it out 13
News Ferguson still struggling with racial bias 12 hr Millstadt69 12
Best fish fry Thu Doctor Taco 6
If you live in North County, do you plan on mov... Thu White Chick 76
Hillary's $145M Kickback Thu Steve 4
News Former Ferguson police chief regrets leaving Mi... Wed steve 9

Overland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Overland Mortgages