Cant wait til the next election of Council Members,,,

So Ms. Murray couldn't wait one week for the normal City Council meeting?

And if it is on the agenda to be discussed, it must be ready for the council to have read and reviewed the exact reason under the charter that Ms. Murray asked the City Attorney, Mr. Martin, asked him to draft up for the council, no?

And if it has to do with the qualifications to run for and be elected as Mayor, why weren't these "qualifications" provided to prospective candidates, in writing, prior to the filing period?

The Mayor is a city-wide elected position. Not a candidate subject to the Council's review and approval prior to being sworn in as Mayor.

Since Ms. Murray has only a mere month remaining in office, she has nothing to fear from a charge of malfeasance in office as a Council member, because it won't remove *her* prior to her exit from the council anyway. If there was such a thing as a dishonorable discharge from office, the picture next to the definition would be that of Ms. Murray.

From the Agenda - does ANYONE have a copy of the text of this "Resolution #02-27-13 PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE REMOVAL OF MAYOR ADAM PAUL"?

So that the citizens can be informed of its content and substance and be prepared to express their views to the council at said meeting?

"So Ms. Murray couldn't wait one week for the normal City Council meeting?"

Same question here. Something doesn't smell right. (Like the whole thing hasn't "stunk" from the get go.)

I urge everyone to attend.

And don't forget:

Pleban and Petruska Law, LLC
2010 S. Big Bend Blvd
St. Louis MO 63117

Memo line: Adam Paul Defense

Keep in mind that the Council has *already* made a decision on the "qualifications" of Mayor Paul to run for office, and that he meets said qualifications by the fact that his name was accepted for placement on the ballot. There is no continual upon-request "review" of "qualifications" during the term of office for the Mayor or any Council Member, with different definitions of "qualifications".

And if the Council has certain "qualifications" it requires in candidates for the Office of Mayor or Council Member, then those should be stated in writing and evaluated by the Council upon acceptance of a candidate filing to run for said office.

Otherwise, a prospective candidate has no way to determine, prior to running for office, whether or not they would meet such hypothetical applied-after-the-fact secret "qualifications".

It denies the voters their civil rights to elect someone as Mayor and it denies prospective candidates their civil rights to have full knowledge of the qualifications required for them to serve as Mayor, if elected. This applies to Council Members as well, since Section 3.6 applies to the Mayor and the Council itself.

I see Ms. Murray and Mr. Martin on the wrong end of a civil rights lawsuit, and if damages are awarded, we the taxpayers will be paying for Ms. Murray's parting "gift" to the people of Ellisville as she leaves office in two months.

No need for an organization, fund, separate bank account...ETC...

Just mail a check:

Pleban and Petruska Law, LLC
2010 S. Big Bend Blvd
St. Louis MO 63117
Phone: 636-645-6666

And the beauty is that this is not an election, and so campaign finance disclosure laws do not apply.
Memo line: Adam Paul Defense

I wonder if an injunction issued by a St. Louis County judge compelling the city council from taking up such a serious matter as removing a sitting mayor, elected by 44% of the electorate, after almost a year in office, by a council, half of which will be no longer part of that council, in an effort to defraud the voters of their elected Mayor prior to the expiration of their seats on the City Council, would be an option.

A court order forbidding any such action as stated by the agenda item, holding a first or second reading, until AFTER the newly elected council is sworn in might be what is required to put an end to the efforts of this zombie lame duck council.

I am planning on calling the ACLU to see if they can help me defend my vote to elect the mayor in the last election. This council is defrauding me of that right.

Mike, I'd check with someone similar with Missouri financial disclosure law. Elected officials have to file annual disclosure statements, so it would probably be good for the Mayor to know what is required regarding donations of this kind.

Reading Exhibit B, it appears that Mr. Martin has disqualified himself (duh! conflict of interest representing the City, the Council, or the Mayor).

Apparently the council has tendered an offer to John Maupin of Eckenrode & Maupin to advise the council *and* serve as hearing officer at the rate of $200 per hour.

Yay, Taxpayers!

Summary: We don't like the Mayor the people elected. We are going to suspend him from office until we get to the part about removing him from office.

Meaning removing him from office until it is "official". In addition, even if he turns in his written request for a hearing, the council has up to 30 days to schedule this hearing. They are going to run out the clock and pass whatever resolutions they want for the entire month of March, as our Mayor will be suspended throughout.

Typical "charge": On a date unknown, the Mayor "disclosed" something the Council (mistakenly) thinks are exceptions to Sunshine Law requirements, but we're not going to say to whom he "disclosed" the information. e.g. "closed session real-estate discussion", "advice regarding operations and procedure".

The other thing is that they keep talking about the Mayor as if he is not a member of the Council, and that there is some mythical unanimous "we" of the six district members that never acts in any independent capacity.

Section 3.2.(a) COMPOSITION. The Council shall consist of a Mayor and two Council Members from each district.

That clearly means that the Mayor *is* a Council member. Then they proceed to list a bunch of stuff that he did and claim that only "the Council" has that authority. Things that are the equivalent of "He didn't ask for permission from "the Council" to go take a dump!".

They call him out for contacting various people about things (forgetting again, that he *is* "the Council" in very same sense that his accusers use the term to wrap themselves in the cloak of authority) that are specifically NOT "applications or petitions" (i.e. "policy"), but somehow are in violation of that prohibition.

It appears to be an argument of verbosity (If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS) to prove that the Mayor is "not a true Scotsman" (i.e. "He Bad. Us good. He not Us.").

On the claim he took actions that could result in the replacement of the City Attorney, claiming he serves at the pleasure of "the Council" (meaning not the Mayor), forgets that the Mayor is a full member of "the Council", apparently he was not pleased nearing the end of Mr. Martin's annually renewing contract unless terminated by either party (the Council or Mr. Martin), and that Article IV, Section 4.1(b)(6) specifically gives the Mayor (alone) the additional duty to "Place into nomination for consideration of the Council nominees for the positions of City Attorney, ..."

I would interpret that as only the Mayor can nominate someone for the position of City Attorney, as it is specifically called out as an "additional duty" of the Mayor, and not a duty or ability bestowed upon any other Council member.

To claim that the Mayor performing his additional duty pursuant to Article IV Section 4.1(b)(6) is a violation of the charter is simply delusional.

Another gem: "Mayor Paul ... has attempted to usurp the authority of the Council". It should be obvious that as a full member of "the Council", the Mayor acts with the authority of "the Council", no different than when any other District Member directs the City Clerk to do something. You cannot "usurp" your own authority.

The Article IV Mayoral Duties specifically notes duties and powers that are *in addition* to those of a District Council member. It is the District Council members that are *prohibited* from doing what the Mayor must do. Not the other way around.

Claim (9): On June 13, 2012, Mayor Paul reprimanded the City Manager for asking the Council if they were available for a special meeting, wrongfully claiming that it was his exclusive prerogative under the City Charter to call for special meetings.

Um, Title IV, Section 4.1 (b)(2) clearly says that "the Mayor shall: (2) Call special meetings of the Council, as provided in Article Three, Section 3.13(a), of this Charter."

No other Council member has this additional power. It is the Mayor's alone. Even in said Section 3.13(a), it clearly says that the Mayor calls (or does not call, his choice) special meetings, either on his own prerogative, or "at the request of at least one-half of the Council Members", which I would interpret as the Mayor must call a special meeting when a simple majority of the Council members want to call one.

I would venture further that there have likely been numerous "special meetings of the Council" that were not called by Mayor Paul, that were initiated by Council members directly, possibly not in the majority, either of which are in violation of the Charter's exclusive granting of that duty to the Mayor alone.

Page 8: Charge #8:
On July 18, 2012, during an open meeting in the City Hall conference room with representatives from Allen Roofing and West County Honda, Mayor Paul arrived and sat next to the City Manager. The Mayor had two containers, a blue energy drink and a thermos-type container with a lid. He placed the thermos-type container on the floor between his feet. The then leaned forward and used the energy drink to top off the container that was on the floor and proceeded to drink from the container.

What is this second grade? Seriously? This is a "reason" you have for removing the sitting duly elected Mayor? I'm surprised there isn't a "charge" in this here for the Mayor, during a Council session, loudly farted in their general direction or accused Ms. Murray's father of smelling like elderberries.

And they have the nerve to claim the Mayor is wasting precious resources of our City Attorney, City Manager, and City Clerk, among others. Really? How many hours and people were involved in taking these depositions and sworn testimony for the above and preparing this drivel?

A more foul, petty, incoherent, and steaming pile of excrement I have never seen put to paper than this proposed resolution.

Exhibit A also offers Keith Cheung $200 per hour as the "special prosecutor" to present a case in favor of removing Mayor Paul. That's $400 per hour, plus expenses in legal bills during these proceedings for both lawyers. Your tax dollars at work, people.

Also of interest, Mr. Bookout failed to put a date on either of those official City of Ellisville contracts.

I wonder if Mayor Paul was "invited" to the "special meetings" that obviously had to have taken place by "the Council", except the Charter clearly says that only the Mayor has the power to convene or call for special meetings of the Council. Pot, this is Kettle.

Worst case: We re-elect Mayor Paul in the special election that must be held if he is removed.

This is so embarrassing, I'm actually glad I can put "Ballwin" as my mailing address.

Wow. Beyond belief. This looks to be motivated by all things bad. Revenge, sour grapes, money, power. The Mayor of Ellisville brought a thermos to meetings and that is cause for impeachment? This is beyond even a kangaroo court. No matter which side you are on, who in the world could think this is fair? It is definitely not fair to Mayor Paul or the residents of Ellisville. This is a complete waste of time and money.

Mike K: I really consider this a travesty. It is so much bigger than Mayor Paul. I just feel it is a blatant misuse of power. It seems so wrong to me on so many levels. You are right. It is a You Paid for It piece. Think of those two attorneys charging $200 per hour. I cannot image what the legal bills for the city will be. Do any members on the council care about that? Are the legal bills public information? Will those be posted so that residents can follow the expense that goes along with this nonsense? I find the entire situation quite sad.

Good morning, all! We are working at getting a .PDF version of the document to attach to this article and will upload it as soon as its available. Thanks!

Someone also needs to call the Colbert Report to cover this train wreck.

He could do an on-going series: “You Can Fight City Hall and Win!…or At Least Make Them Say Stupid Things, Look Ridiculous, Panic and Eventually Reap Millions!”

Many of these charges read like nothing more than a political, professional and personal smear job on Adam Paul.

The .PDF has been attached. Thanks for your patience!

Wow. I've just read through every page. First impression: Chet Pleban is going to feast on this.

Also, the word 'defamation' comes to mind. Kevin Bookout smelled vodka? And based on this anecdote they are going to smear this man's good name? All Mayor Paul need do is provide witnesses that interacted with him that evening and *didn't* detect vodka for this to become a libel case. Damage and malice is self-evident.

The legal exposure of this to the city of Ellisville that this council has provided by way of this action is unconscionable. City Attorney Martin should be relieved of duty for incompetence.

Hmmm. Why do I find it really, really, REALLY hard to believe that Mayor Paul not only drinks regularly on the job but announces it to Mr. Bookout? It reminds me of all those really ill-advised things the "union thugs" supposedly kept saying during the original TIF meetings.

The other thing is that all of these are minor internal policy/procedure issues that should have been handled at the time of the alleged "infraction", almost all of them dealt with by normal, properly documented "internal personnel matter" and reprimand procedures if it rose to the level of such. Not "saving" them up for almost a year and then unloading as many bags of poo to fling at someone to see what sticks.

If they did what any business and HR department does, you sit down in private, discuss the infraction/concern, and clarify the corrective action needed to avoid formal reprimand (in whatever form that takes, not necessarily a witch hunt to remove a sitting elected Mayor/Council member), given the entirely inconsequential and minor nature of the so-called "infractions". None of them are grievous, and none of them resulted in any legal or voter action directed at the alleged actions of Mayor Paul, unlike the actions of these district members of the Council. It is the district members of the Council that disrespected and demeaned the Office of Mayor, not the actions of the Mayor.

If what is alleged is true (and I sincerely doubt that much of it is, either in the utter misinterpretation by the Council of actions of the Mayor, or in the facts of the events in question), the proper course of action would have been to document something in the employee/Mayor's employment file, or to issue a resolution of reprimand -- in a timely manner.

In addition, the entire totality of any "additional expenses" alleged to have been incurred at the request of the Mayor by the City Attorney, City Clerk, City Manager, or any other person alleged in the resolution, is absolutely certainly less than the totality of the expenses incurred by District Council Member Perrillo's lawsuit against the City and the Council itself on which he serves, the efforts of this Council to deny the voters the ability to exercise the rights reserved by them in the Charter (make no mistake, the right to petition our government is one that is reserved by the people, not one that is granted by the Council/governinment), the Katie James Charter Commission circus, and now this, with two lawyers billing at $200 an hour, one of whom will have unlimited taxpayer resources granted to it by this corrupt Council, the legal expenses for the inevitable injunctions, defamation, and libel lawsuits against the city - all borne by taxpayers.

My fellow citizens of Ellisville, the actions of the District Council Members over the course of this past year since the overwhelming voter support and election of Mayor Paul - *THAT* is the definition of Malfeasance and Abuse of Office, and disrespect to the Office of Mayor, and unbecoming behavior of a District Council Member.

Every one of the District Council Members supporting these resolutions and the unconscionable expenditure of valuable taxpayer funds should forfeit their seats on the council immediately.

From earlier today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5vhmk-lxt0

Toast?

Hard to say who is getting burned here with the exception of the Ellisville taxpayer.

And more recently, Sh-Boom, who had a cancellation clause in their contract, but still hasn't seen a dime from Kevin Bookout.

He tried to get in touch with them. Yeah, right. But, the guy said he didn't get any calls.

Too busy sniffing everyone's drink and breath? Noting what color thermos or can they drink out of?

Hint: Pay them their money or this will not look good at your next performance review.

While I almost didn't leave a comment because as we all know "you can't fix stupid", the hypocrisy here is amazing. If any ONE of these allegations were thrown in the way of ANY other City of Ellisville council person or employee, this group would have them tarred, feathered and hanging from the rafters at city hall before the investigation began. These are NOT little issues that can be handled behind doors, especially because one of the items says, they tried handling the Sansone relocation item internally, Adam acknowledged he could lose his seat and STILL chose to go against the city charter. Hello? What part of breaking the city’s charter is okay and what makes him a god that doesn’t have to follow the rules that the rest of us does. You can say what you want about the rest of the council, but they have always followed the city charter, they have not violated sunshine laws and they have always followed the letter of the law. Mr. Paul isn’t close to that level of high class.

Almost every single one of you have complained about the council wasting city money however, it seems Mr. Paul is the king of wasteful spending.