Does Consistency at Council Meetings Matter?

Yes, even more than I thought

Apparently, I stirred up a hornet's nest with my most recent "Council Note's" column in Community Free Press and this blog posting.

Some have questioned whether I took two completely different, unrelated segments of a Council meeting, one in which it is appropriate to honor people with applause and one in which it is inappropriate to honor people with applause and compared them.

For clarification, all the cases of applause my critic(s) have considered have occurred during the course of a convened Council meeting.

In the instance I wrote about, roll call had been taken and the interim City Manager was giving the City Manager's report, after the meeting had begun, when she asked the Council if they would care to join her in applause for Mayor Pro Tem Deaver. The Council's accommodation set off the applause of the public who were in attendance at that June 30 meeting.

Mayor Carlson has asked the public not to applaud anything recently. Mayor Carlson has even threatened to have people removed from the chamber for doing so.

Here are some further facts that readers, and critics, might find pertinent:

The City's Municipal Code does not distinguish that during certain periods of convened Council meetings applause is either appropriate or inappropriate.

Sec. 2-45. Decorum.

(a) Councilmembers. While the city council is in session, the members shall preserve order and decorum, and no member shall, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the council, or disturb any member while speaking, or refuse to obey the orders of the council or its mayor, except as otherwise provided in this article.
(b) Other persons. No person shall make personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks, or otherwise disturb the order and decorum of any council meeting. The sergeant-at-arms, at the direction of the mayor, shall remove any person violating the provisions of this subsection (b).
(c) Signs and displays. No person shall carry or display a sign inside the city council chambers or any other similar type of written communication which is carried or displayed, except nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prohibit a person from using visual materials when presenting a matter to the city council. The city council hereby determines that signs or displays in the council chambers may obstruct the view of citizens, can cause injury and affect the decorum of city council meetings, and are hereby prohibited for such reasons. The sergeant-at-arms shall inform citizens when signs or displays violate this section and shall remove the signs
or displays from the council chambers or may cause citizens carrying such signs or displays to be removed from the council chambers.
(Code 1981, § 2-15)

What the City's Municipal Code does clearly establish is that the presiding officer of the City Council is the Mayor:

Sec. 2-34. Presiding officer.

The presiding officer of the city council shall be the mayor, or in his absence the mayor pro tempore. The presiding officer shall preserve strict order and decorum at all regular and special meetings of the council.

The presiding officer is Mayor Carlson and the Council's presiding officer is on record, during the course of a convened, public, City Council meeting as having established a rule of decorum that people not applaud anything:

"“Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, we would request that you not applause anything. We require decorum in the Council Chambers.” - Mayor Carlson, December, 2007

I have not asked the readers of CFP to consider this a grave issue, I simply spotlighted it.

It was not my idea to establish a rule that people not applaud anything during the course of a City Council meeting. It was the presiding officer of the City Council who established that during a convened, public meeting of the Council.

Apparently, the issue has mattered more to some of my readers than I ever thought it would, hence: It is my opinion, that the interest this most current column inspired makes it that much more important that the presiding officer make every effort to see that the rules he has set forth as pertaining to decorum and the appropriateness of applause during the course of a convened meeting should be practiced consistently during the course of convened, public Council meetings.

Recommended Reading 3

Will the City ask for public input about guidelines for public input?

Read the article in the News-Leader but pay particular attention to the right hand column "More About This Story" where past public comments are outlined. See if you think the past public comments are unrelated or inappropriate to a School Board meeting.

I'm recommending this in light of the recent suggestion by Mayor Carlson that maybe the Council needs to form a Committee to look at rules pertaining to what the public should be allowed to comment on at City Council meetings under "petitions, remonstrances and communications."

Carlson:

"I don't want to be arbitrary in enforcing the rules but at the same time, I think we need to know what they are and maybe have a Council committee look at, as we come forward, because it seems like we're getting more and more of these things and that may be fine, and we may decide that we wanna be here a lot later for everybody to come talk about whatever they do. Frequently, we have people come and talk about things that have nothing to do with city government, for example."

Carlson said he has:

"...different Council people telling me different things. Some Council people say, uh, "you ought to be able to talk about anything," other people say, "there oughta be some rules around here," and if we wanna have rules, fine, if we don't wanna have rules, fine, I just think we need to get on the same page."

On occasion there is a gentleman who addresses Council only to advertise his personal interests, he does his best to tie it in by suggesting the City should take action to promote his interests but it's mainly an advertisement. It would be unfortunate if one man who has probably appeared 2 or 3 times since April 2007, or a total of 10-15 minutes, gave Council an excuse to limit others from addressing the Council about issues of concern they have with the City.

Something I thought was rather important was left out of my current City Council Roundup column at Community Free Press - Midweek. It was probably edited out before I read the proof and okayed it and I just missed it but I thought it was important in light of supplimentals found at the website. The leed in the section about rules for addressing Council that was removed:

"According to City Clerk Brenda Cirtin the city's guidelines for addressing Council have evolved over the years. The roots for the guidelines are found in Chapter 2 (Administration), Sections 43-45 of the Springfield Municipal Code. As the guidelines have evolved, addressing Council about issues not on the agenda have changed to that of simply registering with the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m., the Friday preceding the Monday meeting. The current guidelines do not indicate the registration must be done in writing, as stated in the code."

You can access the supplimentals at the Community Free Press - Midweek website. They are:

Municipal Code Chapter 2, Administration, Sections 43-34

A Citizen's Guide to Addressing Council, from the city's website

Public Hearing Procedures, a handout available at all Council meetings

It seems counterproductive to me that at the same time the City is seeking public input in so many areas, the Council and School Board are discussing restricting established public speaking venues. In fact, as I was getting ready to post this entry I received a news release from the City that they'd like public input on the proposed speed limit reduction for residential streets.

If the Council decides to form a Committee to study the guidelines for addressing Council do you think they'll seek public input about whether public input should be allowed on topics not on the agenda or will the Committee, formed by elected officials, "represent us" in that regard?

Related: busplunge: "Shut Up! You're Distracting Me!" School Board Wants To Limit Public Input At Board Meetings

Related: School board seeks more public input written by Kris Callen, president of the Springfield Board of Education, excerpt:

"To the News-Leader's credit, they were the only media to cover the retreat with a reporter present for a portion of the evening. With that presence, readers should expect accurate headlines and complete coverage. And while the retreat was posted as an open meeting and patrons could have attended, we have no expectation that most citizens would choose to spend their entire Thursday night attending a four-hour meeting. This leads to a more important reason for accurate and complete reporting. Citizens rely on the media for correct information regarding the work of their public entities and boards when they cannot or choose not to attend in person. We do not believe this occurred in this instance and hope that future articles and headlines will more accurately reflect the true nature and extent of the discussion."

Related: from KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program, February 05,_How can we make dialogue between parents and Springfield Public Schools healthier, Tuesday, February 05, 2008, Guest: Dr. Ridder- Springfield Public Schools

Oh, Good Golly, Molly ~ Go, Vince, Go!!!

October04_6:00am_What has been promised for 3 ½ years on KSGF

Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 13
*A Must Listen

What is the timeline behind the empty plot of land in Jordan Valley nect to the expo? What does a memo say that was addressed to the city from a developer who was in the running for this land?
Length:11:25

Jericho tries to "nip it in the bud"

Disclaimer: I should have written this is why I think VDJ might be asking for calls made to certain Council members. Naturally, I cannot speak for HIS reasons. This is my idea of why it is important to call. I have not spoken to Jericho and have no inside information as to why he is charging Springfield citizens with calling these Council members that extends beyond any other listener. ~ Jacke

What is Vincent David Jericho talking about when he asks that citizens of Springfield contact certain City Council members about the City "powers that be" not meeting in secret meetings regarding the negotiating of the development of the property adjacent to the Expo Center?

Let's see if we can get there from here:

I understand that there are some things that went down concerning the Heers Building in the past.

I understand that today, to hear most of the City Council members who were around during early Heers negotiations discuss the history of the Heers Building that it will be said that the developer, Vaughn Prost, couldn't get financing. That Vaughn Prost went broke, though Prost Builders, Inc seems to be continuing in business. It is implied that the Council had no choice but to purchase the Heers Building though I have already posted here that according to this October 16, 2006 City Council meeting... :

"Prost claimed he had two letters of commitment from Bank of America which implies he could have soon paid off the loan. He couldn't have paid off the loan that night but surely he would be able to shortly, that is, if the letters of commitment from Bank of America were reliable. Prost even gave a copy of one of the letters of commitment to the City Clerk that night."

...but at the June 18, 2007 Council meeting (see Heers Building)

"Ralph Manley commented that the City reacquired the property out of necessity to avoid a foreclosure....."

"...Doug Burlison stated that he was not indicating that he was in opposition of the proposed; however, was concerned with the amount of funds that would be expended by the City for interest and other expenses."

Mayor Carlson remarked on the history of the project and stated that the issue had been openly discussed in numerous meetings.

Denny Whayne stated that there was a misconception regarding what was being spent in the downtown area. Mr. Whayne stated that much of the funds were coming from grants and matching funds. Mr. Whayne extended appreciation to the legislators for their assistance."

Though this was all of Whayne's comments included in the June 18 meeting minutes, in fact, Whayne didn't stop there. The City's meeting minutes that are approved don't provide everything that goes on at a meeting, they are summarized. You can watch the Council meeting here by following the archive link to that meeting.

Whayne said:

"...We had a situation that we couldn't control, at the outset. We had a developer we thought was ready to go but couldn't quite get the financing so we almost went into foreclosure so we had to fall in the tub...if we hadn't have purchased the building....When you're dealing with those kind of restoration people we owed them and everything works out but sometimes it doesn't so, you know, we have to try to do the next best thing and I think that's what's happening here..."

Carlson said:

"...like Denny said, the investor that did it went broke and so that the task for this community was to set there and let that thing stop any further development or take a calculated risk that we could lose some money and it was done in open meetings, lots of discussion and we made a calculated risk and there we were, and maybe we need to go back and say, "well, we shoulda left it like it was..."

The only problem Councilman Whayne and Mayor Carlson is that Vaughn Prost had been approved by Great Southern Bank for a loan extension. Bank of America had issued two letters of commitment to Vaughn Prost. At least one of those letters of commitment was for nearly $20 million. The Great Southern Bank loan extension was contingent upon the City of Springfield's approval. The City refused to approve it.

So, why am I going into all of this re-hash of the Heers Building in response to the question of why Vincent David Jericho is asking people to call certain Council members and express that they would like the Council to act in PUBLIC meetings regarding consideration of who will develop the property adjacent to the Expo Center? Here's your answer:

Today there are questions about how we ended up, as Cindy Rushefsky recently put it, "over a barrel" in how the City is able to negotiate the sale of the Heers Building with McGowan-Walsh and the City never mentions their refusal to approve the loan extension that Great Southern Bank had approved contingent upon the City's approval, in fact, in the retelling it seems they try to rewrite history, certain members want citizens to believe that the City had no other choice but to dismiss Vaughn Prost and take over the Heers Building.

Will they, years from now, rewrite history on how the developer was chosen to build on the property adjacent to the Expo Center?

Only if the citizens allow it, only if the citizens don't research it.

So, the answer to "what is Vincent David Jericho talking about when he tells us to contact certain Council members and request these meetings be made in the open?

I think he's trying to solve the next mystery before it becomes the next mystery.

So, Tom Carlson, at the June 18, 2007 meeting you said:

"...but I think, you know, if we're gonna make allegations that things are being mismanaged, uh, then you really need to say "are they?" and if they are we need to know about it...."

Okay, I'll take that challenge.

One of the things I gleaned from the July 2, 2007 City Council meeting was that the City, after they had already climbed between the sheets with Vaughn Prost, realized they didn't have a very good deal (mismanagement) and so they took an opportunity to bail out on that deal when they had the opportunity. They did this by not approving the approved loan extention for Vaughn Prost with Great Southern Bank which would have been covered by the Bank of America loan(s) for which Prost had received letters of committment, then they breathed what they thought was a sigh of relief and pretended that they had no other option because Prost couldn't get the financing for the loan.

When Mary Lilly Smith spoke on the night of July 2, 2007 she referenced the fact that under the Vaughn Prost deal the City had authorized access to more parking spaces in the Heers parking garage than they actually could afford to commit. She compared the deal the City had with Vaughn Prost to the deal the City is negotiating with McGowan-Walsh. Lilly Smith seemed to be trying to make the case that they are negotiating a much better deal with McGowan-Walsh than they had with Vaughn Prost.

Vince is asking you to call certain Council members so that we don't have to look back at the negotiations on the property adjacent to the Expo Center in the future and try to figure out how we got there from here and why.

Is there something wrong with asking that the City Managers and the negotiators fully inform the Council as to how they have made decisions about the "winner" of this prime site?

If YOU are interested in contacting a Council member the numbers are listed at Jericho's Journal

To quote a very famous and transparent City employee:

"Nip it in the bud." ~ Barney Fife, Mayberry.

P.S. The News-Leader does NOT have my permission to publish excerpts of this posting.

Carlson Gardner in the news again

Carlson Gardner made the news again on Sunday. This time in the St. Joseph News-Press.

In Downtown developers cash in, City Government reporter, Joe Blumberg, exposes among other things:

On two apartment developments, the San Regis and the Pioneer Building, two different developers may profit up to 17 percent on the projects before the apartments are even rented. One of those developers is Carlson Gardner of Springfield, the other is Jeffrey E. Smith, of Columbia.

The upfront profit is made possible by the selling of tax credits awarded to the developers for the projects.

Developers compete for the award of tax credits each fall.

Mr. Blumberg also reported that both Carlson Gardner and Smith own companies involved in every phase of a project. Each of those companies, in turn, bill the respective developer at every phase.

In the fall of 2002 one of Mr. Smith's projects was denied in favor of a Carlson Gardner project. St. Joe endorsed Carlson Gardner on projects three times between 2002 and 2005.

The Mayor, David Jones, was up for re-election in 2005. That year seven different Carlson Gardner companies contributed the maximum legal amount to his campaign. Jones lost the election that year.

Read the original article for more details.

Heers Building: The Money Pit?

I realize that this is all "water under the bridge" now, but I found it very interesting and it never hurts to refresh our collective memories about how the City of Springfield has gotten into the position and circumstance in which they find themselves regarding the Heers Building.

This link takes you to the October 16, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes.

See under "MDFB loan" how Vaughn Prost had been approved by Great Southern Bank for a loan extension and how Bank of America had issued two letters of commitment to Vaughn Prost. At least one of those letters of commitment was for nearly $20 million. The Great Southern Bank loan extension was contingent upon the City of Springfield's approval. The City refused to approve it.

While Carlson abstained from the vote...:

"Mayor Carlson noted that he would not be voting on the proposed bill, as he had a connection to Great Southern Bank."

...he did not abstain from commenting:

"Mr. Prost responded the amount owed to Great Southern Bank was $2,840,000. Mayor Carlson suggested Mr. Prost could pay the loan, noting that he would then own the building. Mayor Carlson remarked that Mr. Prost had been given two extensions on the project."

I wonder why Carlson was so catty? I mean, look at the summary above...Prost can pay the loan, then he'd own the building? Prost claimed he had two letters of commitment from Bank of America which implies he could have soon paid off the loan. He couldn't have paid off the loan that night but surely he would be able to shortly, that is, if the letters of commitment from Bank of America were reliable. Prost even gave a copy of one of the letters of commitment to the City Clerk that night.

I can't help but think Carlson, or the City "powers that be," wanted this vote to go through that night because he/they didn't want Prost to pay off the loan and become full owner of the building. I suspect Carlson/the City wanted the City to own and control the building. Why?

"Council Bill 2006-371. Special Ordinance 25077 was approved by the following vote: Ayes: Griggs, Jones, Wylie, Manley, Whayne, and Collette. Nays: None. Abstain: Wright and Carlson. Absent: Deaver."

Today, the consensus seems to be that the City was between a rock and a hard place and that they had no other option but to pass Council Bill 2006-371 to keep the Heers Building from going into foreclosure. The minutes from this October 16, 2006 meeting seem to suggest that they had other options but chose not to consider them.

If the City had agreed to the Great Southern Bank's extension of the loan to Vaughn Prost and the letters of commitment issued to him by Bank of America had been honored, Vaughn Prost could have conceivably paid off the Great Southern Bank note, would be the full owner of the Heers Building and would have continued to develop it.

The City's approval of an extension seems like an option that should have been given more consideration than it was given. As Carlson, himself, said, the loan had been extended twice to Vaughn Prost...was there some sort of limit to how many times it could be extended? Doubtful. Apparently the City felt confident enough in Vaughn Prost's ability to pay the loan to associate with him in the first place and to extend the loan twice. Why couldn't they have considered extending it one more time?

Great Southern approved it. The City didn't.