Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Tony Messenger, polarizing the punditry

In response to Tony Messenger's 'From the mayor, with love':

I suppose perception is everything. In my opinion Burlison didn't vote against the very people who got him elected, meaning the Police and Firefighters (and I didn't realize they had endorsed Burlison, I DO know that Cynthia Rushefsky got a standing ovation from the Police and Firefighters and Burlison did not).

Had you, Tony, been there or had you had an opportunity to watch it on T.V. prior to your blog entry, you would know that Burlison was concerned that if the City tacked onto St. Louis' enabling bill, affording them the opportunity to take a 1 percent sales tax to the voters, they would stop seriously looking at other solutions to the shortfall issue pertaining to Police and Firefighter pensions.

While I certainly wouldn't try to speak FOR Burlison, I believe Burlison would have preferred that new Council members had more of an opportunity to look at other solutions before seeking enabling legislation.

Yes, I understand that the Council wanted to seize the opportunity to tack onto St. Louis' legislation which they felt would speed up the process, but if, as the Council said, they want to raise taxes to fund the shortfall as a last resort, what's the hurry? Maybe Burlison felt they should spend a little more time in exausting other possible solutions BEFORE seeking authorization to take it to a vote. Both positions seem reasonable enough to me, at least for a person willing to consider both sides of the issue rather than simply picking a side and polarizing the issue.

I happen to have interviewed Burlison myself and KNOW that he is very supportive of the Police and Firefighters and wants to see this issue resolved. It is a matter of the best way to solve it.

I do wish that *some* people in this community would spend less time looking for a way to snipe at people they disagree with and more time seriously considering varying opinions and entertaining the option of compromise. It might well be that the polarized pundits might EACH have something to offer in solving problems in our community if we were willing to have an open mind.

Could it be that the budget might offer some options? Burlison noted last night that the new Council members had not yet had the opportunity to look at the budget. Yet, they were required to rush to vote on this enabling legislation prospect. I have to wonder if our City's leaders don't sometimes get in too much of a rush.

In Messenger's rush to 'mend fences' with the Mayor I hope he hasn't alienated other Council members who might happen to think that raising taxes isn't the answer to every problem that our community faces. He might just want to interview a Libertarian 'looneylibby' someday.


The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

Thing is, Messenger's no stranger to Libertarians... he did some pretty good, even-handed stories about Phil Horras when he ran for office.

This is puzzling, though. I thought the idea was that "yes-men" were bad for Council, yet Doug was supposed to be just that? Don't get it.

Jacke M. said...

Yep, on April 5th, two days after the election the News-Leader wrote:

"City councils should invite disagreement both within their bodies and from the citizens they represent. They should embrace those who disagree with them and work together for better solutions. At the end of the day, if critics feel like they've had their say, they are much more willing to accept votes that don't go their way."

Then the first time there is a vote which isn't unanimous on the Council the News-Leader suggests that the dissenting member is back stabbing the people who got him on the Council?

I think the News-Leader was shocked Burlison won that seat and they don't know how to deal with it. Whether they like it or not, whether Burlison was endorsed by the paper or not they are going to have him to deal with it. I wouldn't think making snide remarks about one of the new Council members who merely exercised the power to vote his conscience on an issue would be very conducive to this attitude of "embrac(ing) those who disagree with them and work(ing) together for better solutions," to which the News-Leader gave some early lip service. The proof is in the puddin,' so to speak.

Steven Reed said...


Steven L. Reed, Petitioner )
vs )
Brenda M. Cirtin, City Clerk, )
City of Springfield, Respondent ) Case No. 107CC1310


COMES NOW Plaintiff Steven Reed and asks the Court and Judge J Miles Sweeney to ISSUE AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION requiring Brenda M. Cirtin, City Clerk of Springfield Missouri to not accept the election outcome of the Mayors election held on April 3, 2007 because it was not held according to state law. Also the court and judge need to order the Clerk to declare a new election will need to be had to adhere to the election laws of Missouri. Plaintiff ask for a review of this civil action as soon as possible.

Certificate of Service---I certify that on _____________ a true copy of the above was mailed, postage pre paid or electronically to the last known mailing address of each party to this lawsuit.

Steven L. Reed

Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Reed _________________________________________________
Steven L. Reed, Plaintiff Pro Se
Signed and dated April 9, 2007
1441 S. Estate Avenue
Springfield MO 65804
(417) 368-1481

Copy to Brenda M. Cirtin,

By way of:

David R. Wichmer, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Springfield
840 Boonville
Springfield, MO 65802
Attorney for the Defendants City of Springfield, MO,

e-mailed to the following is hereby completed on this date:

Daniel R. Wichmer

Carl Stephen Yendes

April 9, 2007

Anonymous said...

Fair and Free Elections?

Music =