Thank you to Katie James, for another fabulous waste of time. Anyway, common sense seems to have prevailed.

Fun fact: Katie James was the subject of such a hearing back in '04. Anyone know the details of that complaint? Also, does anyone know if Mr. Srote was party to this complaint? I'd be curious to hear from him.

On to the April elections! I was able to meet Mr. Cahill this evening. Seemed to be a sensible fellow. I'm looking forward to hearing more from the candidates.

Katie James and Robert Srote the crap starters! I still cannot believe Srote said publically that the residents should not get ANY money back from the lawsuit; what a loser and he wants to represent the people of Ellisville....that is a NO vote from me.

I hope this is the last of the city antics and they can start getting something done around here. I saw the city attorney tonight give orders to the chief, and then all of the information Mayor Paul's attorney released was mind blowing. The city attorney instructing everyone to obstruct a legal process, he must go!

City council and Mayor Paul, please do the right thing for the city and get rid of this city manager and city attorney ASAP. I feel as-if you are wasting my money paying the city manager over 100,000 and he is by any standards under performing. Wake-up elected officials and do what we elected you to do; be our voice!

I thought Ms. Petruska's performance was a bit over the top and too heavy on the righteous indignation. Not sure if she was baiting Mr. Martin, the city attorney, to do what he did and ask for her removal. Attica! Attica! At some point he had to shut her down because it wasn't her meeting, and the time and place for rebuttal and airing of grievances would be at the following city council hearings (if the commission accepted the validity of the claim). He had to take away her soap box as it wasn't productive or on the agenda, and was disrupting the proceedings.

The point being, of course, to demonstrate Mr. Martin doing exactly what Mayor Paul was accused of by Ms. James.

I did get the sense that the commission knew that if this went forward, then anything from similar events at city councils or even calling the police when a city council member is a victim of a crime and the ridiculousness of that being a violation of the charter. Then again, maybe I'm being too generous towards the commission.

The motion to dismiss was raised by Ms. Reel.

"The point being, of course, to demonstrate Mr. Martin doing exactly what Mayor Paul was accused of by Ms. James."

Funny how the person running the meeting thinks they're in charge, huh?

As Ms. Petruska noted while she was being led away, Martin gave a signal to the Chief and nodded to have her removed. People in the back told me that Kevin Bookout wasn't involved in ordering the Chief to remove her. He stayed in the hallway.

It's amazing that law enforcement in Ellisville still works without Kevin Bookout's direct involvement. It's amazing that the person running the meeting thinks they're in charge per Robert's Rules of Order.

Either way, Petruska was thorough and did a fantastic job in defending Mayor Paul. Also, what is this banter above about Cahill's yard? Perrillo has a car lot that should be a violation of more than 10 codes.

I wonder how much money Kate James just cost the city for this fiasco? Mayor Paul was forced to get outside representation because our city attorney made the choice to not do his job and represent him. Paul Martin does not appear to know his job as a city attorney, so he shouldn't be one.

As for the police chief he finally got it right! As they should have done at the last meeting, focused on keeping control in the chambers vs. standing there with blank looks on their faces. Police have one job, which it to protect and preserve peace, when they are hired for an event, gathering, or doing patrols throughout our city. They need to remember that, keep their prejudices at the door, and uphold the oath they pledged when becoming officers.

I see that a lot is being made of the city attorney requesting removal Paul's attorney. Does anyone know if the same policy that Paul was charged (not the right way to say that, but cannot think of another way to say it) also applies to the city attorney. I saw this in a previous article:
Section 3.4(c) of the city charter that reads: "Neither the Mayor nor Council Members shall give any orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately."

It seems to only address the elected positions of the city council and mayor. If so wasn't Paul's attorney proving a point with apples to oranges?

"It seems to only address the elected positions of the city council and mayor. If so wasn't Paul's attorney proving a point with apples to oranges?"

Point taken.

I think the real question is -- Do Robert's Rules (which the City Council adopted) apply when the City Council is in session? That puts the Mayor, who was elected, in charge. Not some tin-plated hired functionary.

Another interesting point ---

"I saw this in a previous article:

Section 3.4(c) of the city charter that reads: "Neither the Mayor nor Council Members shall give any orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately."

And as Atty. Petruska noted, Katie James in her sworn statement cited the wrong section of the City Charter. She cited Section 3.5 -- and couldn't even get the date she got "booted" out of Ellisville Elementary School Auditorium right.

For the life of me, as hard as I looked, I couldn't see the dog, the pony or the kangaroo in the city council chambers. Martin must have had them tied-up behind the desk.

Interesting that we can waste so much time and money on a complaint with a sworn statement that contained so many grievous errors.

What it indicates is that anyone with an axe to grind can go before the City Clerk and file any half-wit, error ridden, sworn statement and throw a monkey wrench into the works.

They lost to him miserably and they have been disgruntle towards him from day one. They should absolutely be disqualified; plus, they are sitting council members who will be voting Wednesday as well. What is the point in have a separate commission that is suppose to look at the charter with no bias in city matters, if it is filled with council members that are involved in all city matters? Ellisville needs to get it together, because they are continuously embarrassing themselves and the city along with it. It is so clear that there is a hidden agenda that Mayor Paul is not included in and they are trying as hard as possible to run him out so he doesn't interfere.

Did you see how Michele Murray was glaring at Mayor Paul as-if she wanted to jump over the desk and attack him? She is aggressive towards him for no reason and that should be noted.

There has to besome hidden agendas in this town, and someone should start doing some digging. It is evident that Mayor Paul is on the outside of the rest of the councils tactics. From what I have read of the posts, former Mayor Perrillo is up to some dirt and forcing the hand of the other council members and his appointee to the TIF commission Kate James. 'Small Town' politics appears to be up to some big city dirty deeds. There is no telling what kind of damage Perrillo is planning to do to Ellisville, Ballwin, and Wildwood through the Great Streets project he is involved in. I heard recently that Cahill, who is running for city council, went to a great streets meeting and Perrillo is blocking measures for a meeting time that is more convenient for the public to attend; what are they hiding that they don't want us to be involved in?

In retrospect ---

Atty. Petruska mentioned something about Martin not only being disqualified because he was a witness to the events at the last CC meeting, but something about an email or letter he sent, Mayor Paul not being able to prepare his response and obstruction on Martin's part. I think she said it either before or just after she got "booted." Maybe that triggered the "boot?' It all happened pretty fast.

My notes are scratchy and brief. I didn't follow or understand what she was referring to, but it sounds like there is more to this than meets the ear.

The procedural execution of the commission was straightforward, although unclear as this is likely the first time this procedure has been exercised by any of the participants. To say that emotions were running high is an understatement.

Since the council likely has several charter issues that have revealed a significant lack of clarity and/or constitutionality, it is my hope that Mayor Paul drives the agenda (should the rest of the council crawl under their rocks and ignore the problems) on fixing the city charter on these two points (continued):

1. Clarify that law enforcement and first-responder personnel *are* performing their duties as directed by the City Manager when taking direction from the Mayor or City Council members in performing their customary duties and responsibilities to maintain order (including, but not limited to, city council and special commission functions) and protect the safety, lives, and property of the community they serve, irrespective of their position of Mayor or City council member.

2. Clarify that these charter commission procedures are strictly to determine the validity and correctness of the complaint and response filed with the city clerk, and that the complainant and respondent will be entitled to due process and to seek representation during subsequent hearings should the complaint be recommended to the city council for hearings. Furthermore, I also think that the charter commission should provide a reason when dismissing a complaint, and allow for a dissenting opinion when recommending a complaint for hearings.

(continued)

While Ms. James may have the right to file a complaint for any reason, she should at least get a reason from the commission as to why they decided that the complaint was without merit. (such as factual inconsistencies or disqualifications raised in the response). Also, if a matter is found to have merit and goes to hearings, the dissenting views of the commission against that recommendation should be made a matter of the record of the complaint in the review by the council during the subsequent hearings.

gosh Mike, you are actually starting to make sense. Did you take a smart pill when we weren't looking. Meanwhile the other anti Walmart trolls are still as dumb as a bag of rocks

Nothing to do with walmart. It is about making government work better *for* the people. Not vested interests, personal agendas, and transparency. Walmart is in the past and too late to 'fix' the process or people that started that debacle.

Big Mike K,

Very reasonable assessment of the current issues regarding the charter that need to be addressed in the immediate future.

"Walmart is in the past and too late to 'fix' the process or people that started that debacle."

A judge or judges can fix "stupid" in regards to Walmart.

And we can wreck the majority of "stupid" on the City Council by voting Tuesday, April 2nd.

@ES: "A judge or judges can fix "stupid" in regards to Walmart."

That works both ways. That's what Perrillo was thinking in regards to "recall".

That is another item that needs fixing. Making the Article 9 recall process compliant with the constitutional problem pointed out by Perrillo and ignored by him (he was on the council prior and could have acted to change it and hasn't since either).

Big Mike,

The judge in the recall case used 3rd class MO city case law and related state statutes, not MO charter city case law and related state statutes. Numerous people noted that, including a few attorneys.

On appeal, the decision might have been overturned.

The attorney for the residents fought to get them dismissed from the case, since they never should have been included in the first place...contrary to Pirrello's claims that he just had to sue them.

City Attorney Martin had no interest in fighting for the City Charter Article 9 recall provision. He just rolled over and played dead. Pirrello benefited form him "playing possum."

Pirrello and the City got the outcome they wanted in circuit court.

On appeal, the story might have been very different.

(If the deadline to appeal hasn't been blown and someone or some law professor wanted to throw time and money at it, the story could still be different.)

Not as cut and dry as you think.

Don't expect anything to get fixed until there is a new regime after the April 2nd election. Mayor Paul doesn't have the votes.

He'll have his hands full trying to prevent the next TIF from being crammed down our throats in record time before they get "booted."

The fun starts after the RFP deadline March 15th.

I'm impressed, even Caffeneinated has demonstrated he has a brain. I agree the April election will go a long way to determining the future direction of Ellisville. However if the "Mayor Paul anti business slate" is elected that will go a long way to sealing the fate of Ellisville as the East St. Louis of West County.