Last Chance to Fill out Springfield's Online "Listening Tour" Survey

Many of you know the City Manager and/or other Springfield City staff members have been on, what they call, a "Listening Tour." Well, I don't know how attentively they listen but, if you don't take the survey at all (or haven't attended one of their presentations) then, you can rest assured, they will NOT be listening to you.

The online survey ends tomorrow so this is your final call to click on this link and take the Springfield "Listening Tour" Survey.

If you take the survey, later, when some smart aleck jerk asks you if you have contributed to the process, as though you have no right to an opinion about it if you haven't, you can say, "HEY, you smart aleck jerk! I took the online listening tour survey, did you????" and you will be righteously justified to complain, or praise, the direction in which the City of Springfield is heading.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the City Manager's "Listening Tour"

I've been asked at least a couple of times about Springfield City Manager Greg Burris' schedule for a "Listening Tour."

There is no published schedule. What is being offered is an opportunity for any community or civic organization to schedule a Listening Tour meeting through Executive Assistant Kathy Hardt at 864-1006 or via email at khardt@springfieldmo.gov.

Individual citizens may answer the same survey questions that Mr. Burris is asking when he visits with community or civic organizations, and the Web site the City has provided for such input, according to news releases, does not relay the source of the input except by region (unless you choose to identify yourself).

If you would like to answer the survey questions, you may follow this link, "QuestionPro Survey - Listening Tour."

These are the survey questions:

What do you value most about the Springfield area?
What would you most like to change about the Springfield area?
What is your vision for the Springfield area in the Year 2030?
How can you help us get there?

The survey also gives you an opportunity to make additional comments about Springfield's long range planning process and to provide your email address should you wish to be notified when further information becomes available regarding strategic planning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

City Should Honor Original Council Pledges

Provide Additional Funding Contribution to the Pension Plan from a Different Source if Legal Opinion Demands it

The "Springfield News-Leader" reported January 27, City Manager Greg Burris is suggesting part of the A T & T telecom settlement money be used to pay a 2.77 percentage point difference to the Tier I police and fire pension plan to take responsibility for decreased employee contributions to the Tier I plan, a result of the plan being shut down to new hires in 2006.

According to the report, the pension board agreed to pay an "Additional Funding Contribution" to support a benefit "enhancement" in 2000. The enhancement allows Tier I police and firefighters to accrue maximum benefits at an accelerated rate, the report stated.

The issue might be considered to be raised fairly since, in 2000, the pension board would have no way of knowing Tier I would be closed in 2006, reducing the additional employee funding contribution to the plan.

I can understand, on one hand, why Burris would feel the City has some responsibility to contribute to the percentage point shortfall under the outlined circumstances but, by offering as one option, A T & T settlement funds as the means of covering the 2.77 percent, when the City Council has already pledged to put the entire settlement amount (and any other telecom settlement proceeds) into the pension plan anyway, could be considered to cut contributions by 2.77 percent, rather than take responsibility for them.

If the City wants to take responsibility for 2.77 percent on behalf of Tier 1-covered employees, then the difference should be paid through a funding source not already pledged to benefit the fund. Using funds already earmarked for the pension plan in the first place could be perceived as just a shell game, rather than a real contribution. One hand takes away, the other hand puts it back, and the 2.77 percent the employees would have contributed is lost in the shuffle, it would simply go away.

Of course, that's just my opinion, which is what the News-Leader reported about Burris' thoughts, that it's just his opinion the City should take responsibility for paying a portion of the additional funding contribution.

The paper reported Burris wants to wait and allow the Citizens' Sales Tax Oversight Committee to offer an opinion before the City Council makes a final decision about it.

The City began soliciting applicants for the Tax Oversight Committee on January 26, 2010. The deadline for turning in applications is 5 p.m., Feb. 9.

But, getting back to the original topic, in another way, it doesn't seem a fair question whether the City should be responsible for a portion of Tier I's "Additional Funding Contribution." While Tier I might not have known in 2000 that in 2006 Tier II would be created and Tier I would be closed, the time for this question would have been better suited to have been raised in 2006, or at least in 2009, when City Council stated at line 182 of resolution #9714 (passed on September 10, 2009 at a public meeting),

"If the tax passes ... The Additional Funding Contribution (AFC) portion of their (police and fire Tier I employees) contribution, as determined by the actuary's experience study, will continue in perpetuity; the additional contribution will sunset when the tax sunsets."

If the City chooses to label a portion of the A T & T settlement money as satisfying 2.77 percent of the additional funding contribution, it will take that much longer for the 3/4-cent pension sales tax to satisfy the pension shortfall and could potentially increase the number of requested extensions of that sales tax.

The News-Leader's Editorial Board also opined, in the January 27, "Our Voice" column, residents should be keeping an eye on the pension issue and that the News-Leader will try to seek answers as to why the City Manager would recommend the Council contribute millions more into the Tier 1 plan, money police and firefighters had already agreed to pay themselves.

One scenario (I'm just supposing) might be that Burris thinks there is a possiblity that if there is a legal challenge brought by the police and fire association/union attorney concerning this additional funding contribution, a judge might rule against the City, ruling the City should contribute the difference. In that case, Burris might want to play it safe and label part of the A T & T settlement money as payment of the 2.77 percent to protect himself and City staff from having to come up with an additional $5 + million in the future.

Certainly, the City manager could be considered crazy for recommending the Council pay a contribution police and fire employees have already agreed to pay but, is he? If he really thought the City could lose in a law suit against them, he might just be (in a self-serving way) "crazy like a fox" because, by recommending, as an option, mind you, part of the A T & T telecom settlement money be labeled as payment of the additional funding contribution, he and other City staff members wouldn't be scrambling to come up with the contribution through potential budget cuts later.

Think about it. The contribution(s), if payment is required from the City rather than Tier I employees, are going to come out of the tax payer's pocket regardless of when and how. Burris could be thinking, 'So, why not make it less painful for me and the City staff responsible for balancing a budget every year?' With a simple slight of hand it could appear $5 + million has been compensated in the fund. The reality is, if it is done using A T & T settlement funds, and the City manager gives up before there is even a legal challenge filed, it is crazy but, it would make his job easier. We need to know, for certain, the motivation for such a recommendation because, the difference is, by using that option, the responsibility is transferred from the collective shoulders of those police and fire employees who benefit from Tier I, and to the shoulders of the tax payer .

Regarding the potential legal question, in my opinion, since there was no objection to the additional funding contribution in 2006, when Tier II was created and Tier I was closed, then that ship should be considered as having sailed but, if there is still a question? There was even a very recent, second chance for police and fire Tier I beneficiaries to object to paying the additional funding contribution. The chance even occurred at a time the pension board, and many police and fire department employees, were fully focused on the pension plan and a highly touted sales tax remedy to its shortfall. You see, in 2009, when Tier I beneficiaries' responsibility to pay the additional funding contribution was reinforced by the passage of Council resolution #9714 in a very public meeting, Tier I employees, again, failed to object to taking responsibility for that contribution.

We really do have to wonder why Burris is offering an opinion that appears to concede this challenge before a challenge has even officially been filed (if it ever gets filed) a position the News-Leader reported was even in opposition to his own legal councel's opinion....

Experience might have been useful? (I'm just askin'...)

Where IS Vincent David Jericho when a girl needs him!? ;)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Springfield Should have Limited Focus to Passing Pension Sales Tax in November

Attempt to stage November's ballot language to enable the city to influence a future sales tax repeal vote may threaten passage of pension sales tax next month

Springfield, MO - There has been repeated reference made by City attorney Dan Wichmer that state statute restricts and limits what the city may, or may not, include in the ballot language of a sales-tax initiative to fund the police and fire pension plan. What is interesting are the deviations from the ballot form RsMo 94.579 has indicated the city must "for the most part" follow. Why oh, why, do they chose the deviations they choose? (Well, keep reading.)

RsMO 94.579 states:

The ballot of submission for the tax authorized in this section shall be in substantially the following form:

Shall ...... (insert the name of the city) impose a sales tax at a rate of ...... (up to one) percent, solely for the purpose of providing revenues for the operation of public safety departments of the city?

Other than a yes box, a no box, and some voter instruction, that's it...the end.

Had the City of Springfield, and its City Council, which approved the City of Springfield's official ballot language on August 24, stopped with the first part of the paragraph, which reads:

“Shall the City of Springfield impose a sales tax at a rate of three-quarter of one percent (3/4-cent) solely for the purpose of providing revenues for the Springfield Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension System,"

...my yes vote would have been secure but, they didn't stop there, instead, they added:

"with said tax to sunset upon the Pension System fund reaching a fully-funded (100%) status as determined by an independent actuarial study conducted for the Pension System Board of Trustees?”

With that, and a heavy heart, my no vote was secured, instead. A heavy heart because I do recognize the importance of the tax being passed, it is the reason I voted in support of the failed February pension sales tax of 1 percent.

The ballot language has been troublesome for many citizens, and personally, I think if public confusion rises to the level the City Manager feels it is necessary and appropriate to initiate passage of a City Council resolution clarifying the language, then there is an obvious and very real problem with it (see: Council Bill 2009-254, purpose and explanation).

The reason the second half of the ballot is troublesome to me rests in its potential to make me a liar in 2014, should I wish to make the decision to repeal the tax.

By voting yes on "question 1," I would not only be approving the 3/4-cent sales tax to fund the pension plan but, in my view, I would, in essence, be endorsing funding the pension plan to a 100 percent funded ratio before I would vote to repeal the tax.

Since I do not believe that full funding is either necessary to reach the city's goal, and question whether it is the best funded ratio by which the city could reach their goals, I am uncomfortable with endorsing a 100 percent funding of the plan.

A couple of things stop me from committing to endorsing paying the sales tax until the pension plan is funded at 100 percent.

1. The city is under no threat of the state withholding sales tax revenue to fund the pension plan, so long as the pension plan is funded at a 60 percent or higher ratio.

2. Milliman actuaries recommended the funded ratio which would best reach the city's long term goals as 90 percent, when they performed a study prior to the failed February vote.

"Under both 6 percent and 7.5 percent [investment return] scenarios, funding to the 100 percent target appears to overshoot the desired results long term," the Milliman actuaries advised. "The 90 percent target scenarios seem to better match the desired long term outcomes." - Nov. 19, 2008 issue, "Community Free Press," page 2)

I also resent what I perceive as an effort, on the city's part, to set up language today which will more than likely be used to coerce or guilt the public into approving it again, five years from now.

If I can be even clearer: I planned to vote in support of a 3/4-cent sales tax to fund the police/fire pension plan but, because, instead of placing a straight-forward and focused question before me, the city wrote language with an eye toward influencing my vote in five years, I will be unable to vote in support of the over-all question. I hope they have not ensured this sales tax initiative's failure.

They lost my affirmative vote by over-reaching what should have been the clear-cut objective of simply passing THIS sales tax initiative on THIS day (November 3).

It truly was a yes vote that was the City's to lose.

Disclaimer: I have not written this post to try to influence the vote of any other Springfield resident. I simply cannot, in good conscience, support the ballot language of "question 1," as it was crafted.

Related: "Law sought to give Springfield voters voice in funding choice" - Source: "News-Leader.com"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Repeat City Council Speakers not Going Away Anytime Soon

In fact, City Manager Greg Burris' recent remarks about regular speakers at City Council meetings, "probably just strengthens our cause," said Missouri Liberty Coalition member Carl Herd

I got wind that the Missouri Liberty Coalition (MoLiCo) would be meeting last Saturday, September 19, for a "planning meeting."

Considering I used to be the "Community Free Press" liaison with the local government watchdog group, and they haven't made it, as a group, into the news much lately, I thought it might be interesting to attend the meeting and see what they were talking about.

It has been nearly a half a year since three of the MoLiCo members ran for City Council seats. Nick Ibarra won his Zone 1 Council seat, the other two contenders, Tom Martz and Fred Ellison did not prevail against their opponents in the race.

Five members were in attendance at last Saturday's meeting, while a couple of other interested non-members contributed to the conversation.

The Missouri Liberty Coalition, as featured in the January 30, 2008 issue of "CFP," focuses on Springfield City government and City Council issues. For that reason, they regularly attend City Council meetings and address the City Council, often questioning actions the Council will take regarding legislation, for the most part, crafted in the City's legal department as a result of either an issue or interest of Springfield City staff or its City Council.

Listening in on their conversation, and even contributing my own thoughts at times (though I am not a member of the group) I learned they are content with maintaining a local city government focus, although, in the early days of their founding, they had considered scrutinizing the county and state governments as well.

Some members expressed concern about what, arguably, could be considered efforts by some people in the community, and even within the government, to minimize the opinions of the members of the group by seeming to suggest because they repeatedly address the Council, their voices are somehow less important than Springfield residents who do not regularly address the City Council.

"JackeHammer" would ask, who better to address the Council, who more credible, than a small group of interested and passionate Springfield residents, to raise questions about potential legislation facing our elected representatives, than a group who regularly and consistently reads and studies each City Council agenda and every item listed upon it?

In a recent interview in the "Springfield News-Leader," reporter Kary Booher asked Springfield City manager Greg Burris some pointed questions to commemorate his first year anniversary as Springfield's City manager. During the course of answering one of Booher's questions, Burris responded,

"When we go to a City Council meeting, there is a group that shows up -- it's a small group -- and speaks out critically against the city on anything. It doesn't matter what it is. But you don't see a civil discourse within the meeting. The meetings are civil, don't get me wrong. But you don't see other citizens getting engaged in the process. That's been a little disappointing. I'm hoping that changes over the next few years. Things have been so good for so long that I think many of us took it for granted that things would continue to go very well. But we're living in a different time right now. When the only people that bother to show up to City Council meetings and other meetings and speak out are the regulars -- and that's the only voice that the council gets to hear in a public setting -- that's a little disappointing."

There was little doubt in Carl Herd's mind that Burris was speaking of the members of the Missouri Liberty Coalition, who regularly attend Council meetings.

"I think that this just shows his inexperience as a City Manager in how he responded to Mr. Booher in his interview in the paper, and that when he looks back on it, he might have answered differently," Herd said. "But, as far as him trying to diminish the small group of people who attend City Council, and we pretty much know that that's the MoLiCo, for the most part, that probably just strengthens our cause."

MoLiCo member Tom Martz gave grace to Burris' right to have and share his opinions in the "News-Leader" but, wanted to be sure there was recognition that every member of the public has that same right to address their elected representatives. He felt that through Burris' comments he had learned more about Burris' thinking.

"Mr. Burris is entitled to his opinion, just like I am entitled to my opinion, and the individual membership of MoLiCo are entitled to their opinions as well, " Martz said. "To attend City Council meetings is my right as a citizen of Springfield, to question the actions of government is my duty as a citizen of Springfield, and we are a representative republic, therefore, my representation at City Council meetings, no matter how many I attend, should not be looked at as a means of disdain."

What are MoLiCo's plans for the future?

"We're still a very active group, maybe not huge in numbers but, a very passionate group that are still working on the real important issues, following City Council agendas, and responding to that, whether it be the pension shortfall or Springfield Mill and Lumber, or whatever issue comes up," Herd said.

Tom Martz, who due to his busy work schedule has not been able to attend City Council meetings as regularly as he has in the past, said when his seasonal work schedule begins to slow down he plans to start attending Council meetings more regularly again.

"Come about the middle of November, when my schedule slows down, then I will be back attending City Council meetings on a regular basis," Martz said. "I think it's irresponsible for people not to attend City Council meetings. Everything they do has an effect and an impact on what you do in your personal life."

One thing is certain, City manager Greg Burris will continue to have the ear and influence upon Springfield voters' elected representatives. He is a regular attendee of all meetings of the City Council, and it is his well paid job to continue to be a regular attendee. Burris' opinions will never be "diminished" because he repeatedly bends the ears of our elected representatives. Should your opinion be diminished because you regularly exercise your right to address your elected representative?

I'm just askin.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

City Manager's Memo Paints Bleak Picture

Eliminations hit many City departments; effect all

In a memo to Mayor Jim O'Neal and the Springfield City Council, City Manager Greg Burris indicated there are currently 101 vacant positions within City government. In addition, Burris noted another 46 temporary, seasonal and contract positions have been eliminated. All of the 147 positions have been either eliminated or are frozen.

Burris said there is a potential for further reductions in City services.

He warned the Council, they may begin receiving complaints about service delays or, about services that simply are no longer offered.

"No one should claim to be surprised by these service reductions -- especially the print media outlet and others who accused the City of "threats" when this information was shared publicly in January," Burris wrote.

The City Manager also warned the City Council that their own information requests, while they would continue to be addressed, could have the impact of further slowing existing City service functions. He encouraged the Council to carefully consider citizen-generated information requests before, "simply forwarding that request to us."

While it isn't directly stated, it might be hinted that, in the future, the public may be requested to more routinely fill out a formal Sunshine Law requests, rather than rely on informal email correspondence in seeking answers from the City government.

"I am providing updated guidance to departments on the process on how they should respond to requests for information to the Custodian of Records -- the City Clerk's Office," Burris wrote. "Our goal is to be consistent and fair in our application of these new guidelines."

Following are programs and services which have been eliminated from various departments:

Planning Department

> The Neighborhood Assessment Program
> The annual Neighborhood Trash Clean-up Program
> The Urban Neighborhood Alliance's low-interest home improvement loan program for low- and moderate-income citizens
> Support for Center City revitalization program through the Urban Neighborhood Alliance
> Support for the Urban Districts Alliance and the Downtown Springfield Community Improvement District
> Caring Communities neighborhood revitalization program through Community Partnership of the Ozarks
> Hardcopy "Front Porch" neighborhood newsletter
> Services to registered homeowner's associations
> Hardcopy Monthly Service Request reports to neighborhood presidents
> Support for downtown Wi-Fi
> Contract for downtown on-street parking enforcement

Police Department

> The Dare program
> Grant Beach sub-station staffing
> Commercial Street sub-station staffing
> Annual Police Citizen's Survey
> Car seat checks and other Traffic Safety Alliance programs

Fire Department

> Fireworks patrols
> Staffing at the Ozark Empire Fair
> Free smoke alarm program

Public Works

> All annual flower plantings

Health Department

> Phelps Grove and Rountree neighborhood rental registration program
> Multi-family housing inspections
> A number of employee health and wellness programs

Parks Department

> Firefall event
> Outdoor concert series

Human Resources Department

> All police and firefighter testing programs
> A variety of employee training sessions and workshops
> Supervisor training programs
> Employee exit interviews
> The Employee Referral program
> Participation in the Partners in Education school program
> Employee service recognition

The above listed items do not include a listing of the services which were reduced. The lists above only include programs or services which have been eliminated.

In addition to the above eliminations, the employees of the City of Springfield are not scheduled to receive cost of living or merit pay increases.

Other employee eliminated benefits include: no "thank you" picnic; no computer purchase incentives; no employee wellness program; no health risk assessments or wellness incentives and; no employee sick leave incentive.

Other topics of the memo will be addressed in a separate entry.

Source: Memo from City Manager Greg Burris to the Mayor and City Council dated July 15, 2009

Related: For information about how to fill out a formal Sunshine Law Request, complete with a "fill-in-the-blank" form, go to this page of the Missouri Attorney General's Web site.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where's my 4.1 Million Dollars, Dude?

That might be what Police and Firefighter Pension Trustees and the past and present City Council members are asking today

Update: Please refer to: "JackeHammer: I was wrong..."

The City of Springfield stated, in its explanation to Council Bill 2009-053 (Ordinance No. 25556), that, with Council approval, the net AT&T Mobility Settlement would equal the amount the City underfunded the pension plan during four past fiscal years, with interest. Council, clearly, unanimously approved the bill with that intent, also amending the budget, "In the amount of $10,225,361.00 for payment into the Police Officers' and Fire Fighters' Pension Fund to meet the City's net pension obligation," on March 9, 2009.

I could quote and quote from Ordinance No. 25556, noting the intent of the ordinance, and I could quote and quote from the March 9, City Council meeting, proving the belief of the City Council that the money the City would end up with, as a result of the AT&T Mobility settlement, would be enough to cover the entire net pension obligation, including the interest accrued at 7.5 percent through June 30, 2009 but, you can read the bill as linked above for yourself.

Clearly, our past Mayor, Tom Carlson, believed it was "a done deal."
Carlson stated in his State of the City address on March 5, "The newspaper put a lot of pressure on us through the editorial board but, your Council stuck to its guns (and) as a consequence of that, we are going to get enough money in here to make the full payment that we owe, with interest."

At the following City Council meeting, past Councilman Ralph Manley believed it was a big win for the City, "This is a real bonanza for us, and we're very happy that all of this settlement can go to these funds, and it's going to go a long way toward catching up some of the shortages we've had," Manley said.

City Manager Greg Burris said it would take the City from around $200 million in shortage to around $190 million in shortage amounts, "and, as the Mayor pointed out, it does make the City whole in terms of making that contribution that was recommended by the actuaries over those 4 years," Burris said.

Carlson, in an exchange with Finance Director Mary Mannix Decker asked her, "So, to say it another way then, if the Council approves this bill tonight, once the money's received, it will be placed in the pension fund and it would fully satisfy all the payments that the actuaries were requiring the City to make over the past 3 or 4 years?"

Decker responded, "Yes, that's correct."

So, what happened? Where's the pension fund's intended $10,225,361.00?

Section 1 of the ordinance might offer us a bit of direction. It states, " The City Manager, on behalf of the City of Springfield, Missouri, is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with AT&T Mobility, LLC and those who conduct business on its behalf and named in eight tax protest suits filed in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, provided said agreement is in substantially similar form and content as the agreement entered into between the City of Springfield and Sprint Corporation and the agreement entered into between AT&T Mobility and Jefferson City, Missouri, upon the City Attorney approving the form of such agreement and the City of Springfield receiving out of said agreement the release of all taxes paid prior to June 30, 2009, and sufficient additional cash payment so that the City will receive, and have available to it, the total of $10,225,361.00 by June 30, 2009."

So, in other words, provided everything worked out the way the City, staff and attorneys thought it would, and then, with the City Attorney's approval as to the form of the agreement, and if, and if, when all was said and done, the City had available the $10,225,361, they'd put that amount in the pension fund.

Though the intent was there, the $10.2 Carlson and the past Council were counting on will not be received by the City of Springfield.

Although the bill, which the sitting City Council of the day approved in March, stated, under #3 of the explanation, "The attorneys' fees and costs for the City will be paid directly by AT&T Mobility...," and noted the stated intent, that "the City's NET settlement proceeds WILL equal the amount the City underfunded the pension plan during four fiscal years (FY2004 through FY2007), plus interest," and although staff recommended approval, "of this settlement... to meet the City's net pension obligation," it all flew out the window when the actual agreement was signed and notarized.

So, what was the agreement? What "form of agreement" did the City Attorney approve? That's the easy question, you can simply read the signed, notarized agreement* between all parties.

The City will receive only $6,125,000, rather than the budget amended amount of $10,225,361, and Lowther Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLC will receive $4,375,000. All of it will come out of a pot of $10.5 million but, technically, AT&T Mobility will pay the City's attorney fees directly, just as the ordinance indicated it would.

The tougher questions to answer are what happened to the ordinance indicated amount of $10,225,361? Why did the agreement fail to provide the net funds in an amount sufficient to cover the City's net pension obligation plus interest, as intended?

Somewhere between the passage of that bill in early March, and April 21, our fair City lost an intended $4.1 million. Our police and fire fighter pension fund lost $4.1 million and the taxpayers of Springfield, Missouri lost $4.1 million. Okay, you say, you can't lose what you don't have, that is true but, by all previous indications, the City had a tentative settlement agreement for an amount $4.1 million greater than what the City will receive.

The moral of the story: Don't count on your chickens (or duck) before they're hatched.

*Source: "Springfield News-Leader"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SOS Spokesman Mark Wright's Email, Declining Invitation to Speak to the Springfield Police Fire Pension Citizen's Task Force

Tom Martz's summary presentation

The other day, I had a short-but-sweet discussion with Darin Chappell in the comment section of another entry. In that entry, Chappell had already explained his personal reasons for declining to present the Save Our Springfield (SOS) pension plan proposal to the Police and Fire Pension Citizen's Task Force, after City Manager Greg Burris extended an invitation for them to do so.

When Chappell noted an email, written by Mark Wright to the City Manager's office, declining the invitation on behalf of the SOS spokesmen, I thought the public would be interested in reading that email so, I requested a copy of it.

Chappell had noted, "The very nice email response that Mark Wright sent back to Mr. Burris was much more than a simple declination, by the way. It says quite a bit about the City in general, and Mr. Burris in particular, that he seems to be characterizing our decision as he is."

Technically, I can't agree that Burris characterized SOS by not elaborating upon the reason behind the group's decision not to present their plan to the task force. It really isn't Burris' job to explain the reasons behind the actions of SOS, but, that said, I suspect Burris knew the negative nuance of, repeatedly, noting he had invited SOS to speak to the task force but they'd declined, while failing to share the reason for that declination.

Eventually, Mark Wright forwarded the email response to me.

I was surprised to find out, according to Mark Wright, no member of the press or media ever contacted him to find out why SOS decided against speaking to the task force, but, rather than holding Burris accountable for the negative nuance present, due to no reason for SOS' decision ever being published, I prefer to remedy the problem by publishing the reason here, and doing what I can do, in my small corner of the world, to make those reasons available to the public.

I do wonder if media representatives felt the public would not be interested in why the SOS group, after much public fanfare about their plan, chose not to present it to the task force. I don't even know if Burris, in an earlier interview with the News-Leader, might have elaborated on the subject. It is possible he did but the News-Leader failed to include that portion of his interview in their article. Who knows? But, according to Wright, "After Mr. Burris’ letter to the editor, when he mentioned we declined the invitation to speak to the task force, I expected some inquiries and never received any. You are the first. "

Tom Martz, who had signed on to endorse the SOS plan during his campaign for the City Council General Seat A, did make a presentation regarding the SOS plan to the Pension task force. In an email from Martz, he gave a summary of his remarks to the task force, which were delivered on Thursday, May 21.

"In this presentation I gave a complete review of the S.O.S. plan and expanded upon that by pointing out many of the pitfalls of the pension plan and the 1 percent tax, which the city tried to pass in February," Martz wrote. "With the opportunity given to me by the S.O.S group, in allowing me to present the pension solvency plan, along with the City Manager and the Pension Citizen Task Force, I believe they were given an opportunity to see that tax increases should not always be the first and final solution to government problems."

Anyway, it's kind of old news now but, I think the public might still be interested in that email so, following is the body of the April 30, email, SOS spokesman Mark Wright sent to the City Manager's office after Burris relayed an invitation for them to address the task force. I have omitted the email addresses and date and time stamps:

Darren and I are grateful for the invitation by Mr. Burris, however we have concluded that SOS cannot add anything of substance to our solvency solution for the Fire-Police Pension Fund. SOS respects the valuable time of task force members and has no desire to impede their important work by rehashing our well publicized plan.

Our goal was to bring forward a temporary alternative proposal that would be tax-rate neutral, which would allow city leaders time to come up with a permanent solution to the solvency issue. We are humbled by the fact that our proposal led to the creation of the task force and equally humbled that our proposal is under consideration. If the SOS solvency plan is chosen or a superior plan is adopted by the task force, we will be satisfied.

We sincerely wish city leaders and task force members the best of success as they seek out a solution to a challenging problem facing our city. SOS is confident that when the citizens of Springfield unite behind one common effort we can conquer any obstacle.

May God bless,

Mark Wright
Darin Chappell

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Allow Newspaper to Do its Job, Mr. City Manager

In a rather scathing "Voice of the Day" letter in the "Springfield News-Leader" on Sunday, City Manager Greg Burris asked the Queen City's daily paper of note to "Allow task force to do its job." The task force the headline was referring to was the Police and Fire Pension Citizen's Task Force.

My suggestion to Mr. Burris would be, let the newspaper do its job, and consider giving your own Public Information Office some instruction on how to better perform their jobs.

Burris' letter followed, almost a month to the day, what I, personally, would call a tantrum, thrown by past Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver, in which he stated he was planning to wait until after he left his Council post to come back to a City Council meeting and "...discuss some of the coverage that I've felt that we've received on issues...in the past," in News-Leader editorials.

The News-Leader's quick response to Deaver's charges of inaccuracy on the part of past editorials, which were most recently, at the time, pertaining to a trash hauler agreement between the city and its two largest trash companies, was answered swiftly in a March 25, News-Leader "Our Voice" column:

"Oddly, he [Deaver] had never asked us to clarify anything in numerous news stories and editorials, and he didn't ask to write anything to offer another opinion himself. He also never sought a correction on the issue...."

Sunday's letter from Burris carried on this, apparent, traditional view on the part of the city, it's officials and certain Council members, by further displaying "the City's" disdain for communicating with the public through, what should be, or, at least, could be, the most valuable medium available to them, the daily paper. Burris wrote:

"After I was asked to put together a citizen task force to study the police/fire pension issue, our city staff made a conscious decision to step back and let the task force do its work rather than engaging in the News-Leader's various pronouncements about the pension plan.

"I remain hesitant about responding, mainly because I don't want my response to infer that I'm giving the material credibility. But Sunday's self-aggrandizing editorial warrants comment for the sake of the task force and our public-safety employees."

I would say to Mr. Burris, much more credibility is given to editorial comments in a newspaper when they are not rebutted, if wrong, than when they are rebutted.

The public wants the facts. The public wants the truth and, I have found, is quite ready to accept it when it is shared. Don't blame the newspaper for the City Management and the City Council's unwillingness to engage in discussion and to correct mistakes, when made. You, and the City, have no one to blame but yourselves for not being forthcoming when erroneous information is shared. Take responsibility for that fact.

When the public hears nothing from you, your employees or elected superiors, after faulty information is shared, they have no recourse but to believe that the information must have been correct.

But, all that said, I wonder, why is the City Manager of the City of Springfield writing letters to the News-Leader? Why aren't errors or misrepresentations (if they exist) being dealt with by the Public Information Office when they occur? Why are such errors, presumably, based on Mr. Deaver's comments, allowed to continue to build suspicion in the minds of the public with no rebuttal or correction on the part of the City?

Springfield's City Manager should let the daily newspaper of note in Springfield do its job and should be asking his own Public Information Office to do their jobs, they are under the manager's authority, the writers of News-Leader are not. Perhaps, instead of expecting writers of the newspaper to cease sharing information with the public about the pension issue, the City Manager should be addressing the City's Public Information Office about dealing with these issues as they arise? Is this a task beneath them?

What is the purpose of the meetings of the Police & Fire Pension Citizen's Task Force being open to the public? Why do they have their own City of Springfield provided Web page, with links to documents of the task force available for download to the public? Because, as the City's elected, appointed, and hired servants have inferred, they want the public to be informed or, because it's the law and since they have no choice anyway they might as well put a good spin on it? I ask these questions because the public keeps hearing lip service from "the City" about how citizen input is desired, about how the city desires this process, and that process, to be open and transparent but, sorry, actions speak much louder than words.

Blaming the newspaper, because they have done their job in reporting about city issues, including the police and fire pension issue, for police and firefighters retiring at the first available opportunity? Really? If confusion about the issue is to blame, it would behoove the City Manager's office and City Council to clear up the confusion. If, as Burris wrote, the News-Leader's editorials are culpable for, "scaring firefighters and police officers into retiring as soon as they hit eligibility," one would think the City Manager would wish to make addressing errors within those editorials a top priority.

I'm one person. I don't have a staffed Public Information Office behind me but, when I see a mistake in the News-Leader, somehow, free of charge, and all alone, with no support, I manage to report it at this Web log. It's amazing to me that the City, with all its staff, can't manage to do what I, often, do for nothing, all alone, here at this blog.

Take responsibility for those under your charge, Mr. Burris.

The News-Leader is not under your charge, but, would benefit from the attention of your staff when they need to make corrections. If there is not enough money in the general fund to properly address important issues of the City, hmmm, how did we get there? Oh, I know, it's the News-Leader's fault. Maybe, had they not reported on the State audit of the City, that pension sales tax might have passed in February, then the City could have afforded to address public relations through its Public Information Office.

Funny, everything bad that happens is, often, someone else's fault these days.

Allow the media in this city to do its job, which, whether you like it or not, happens to be reporting on your actions, the actions of those under you and the actions of those who are your elected superiors.

If the City's message is not accurately being portrayed or the City is having trouble retaining personnel, perhaps the City needs to look within.

In the end, I think everyone is just trying to do their jobs.

It continues to trouble me that the City appears to prefer taking an adversarial attitude toward the print press in this city, rather than working with them, to make sure factual information is shared and properly understood.

Oh, one more issue. Burris mentioned, again:

"We invited the Save Our Springfield group the News-Leader champions to present its plan, which includes a "bias" toward a tax trade-off. (They declined the offer)."

JackeHammer sent out an email inquiry to one of the spokesmen of the SOS group the City Manager claims the News-Leader "champions," inquiring about why the group declined to make a presentation to the Pension Task Force. Darin Chappell responded to that inquiry on Friday or Saturday:

"I cannot speak for everyone, but I decided not make a presentation on my own account for two reasons:

First, the SOS plan was never designed to be a permanent solution to the problem. It was only supposed to offer a temporary band aid to allow the City time to do what they are now doing. So, going before the task force to tell them what they really cannot use for the final solution seems a bit pointless.

Second, I do not think that it would serve SOS for me to be the one to make the presentation, even if it needed to be made, given the recent events between the City and myself.

So, for both of those reasons, I told Mark Wright that I would not be presenting anything.

In the final analysis, I believe we accomplished all we set out to do in that we got the people thinking about other options besides tax increases...got the City to establish the task force...got the Mayor to sign on to much of our platform (including reopening the police and fire academies), and most importantly, let the City know that we're watching."

A later email inquiry posted to Mr. Wright has not been answered.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AT&T Settlement of $10.2 is NOT Going to Pay for Additional Police and Fire Personnel

During the budget discussion at the City Council luncheon on Tuesday, City Manager Greg Burris discussed a telecommunications settlement revenue stream that would pay for the ongoing costs of hiring 10 new police officers and 5 new firefighters. That revenue stream was a result of the AT&T settlement agreement reached this year.

Earlier today I asked Public Information Director Louise Whall to clarify that this was not revenue which had been pledged by past Mayor Tom Carlson and the past City Council to go into the police and firefighters' pension fund.

Ms. Whall explained the $10.2 million pledged to the police and firefighters' pension fund was money received prior to June 30, 2009, or during the current fiscal 2008-09 budget year. Burris was referring to ongoing revenue generated by the payment of taxes from AT&T and associates after July 1, 2009, when he referenced the AT&T settlement in regards to ongoing personnel funding in the police and fire departments.

"The revenue Greg Burris referenced yesterday is the ongoing gross-receipts taxes that AT&T et al will pay going forward beginning July 1, 2009," Whall wrote in an email today.

Tuesday, Fire Chief Barry Rowell explained positions in the fire department would be filled more quickly than the police department positions because a portion of firefighter training is accomplished while the trainees are on the job.

In the case of the police officer positions, the AT&T settlement revenue received in the new fiscal year will be applied to reopening the police training academy. It will take up to a year before the police trainees will be on the job at the police department.

The police department is applying for stimulus funds from the federal government which, if granted, would cover the wages of the new police officers for three years, then the City would have to take over the costs of their ongoing wages. The City Council recently authorized the City to apply for those stimulus funds, which are in the form of a competitive grant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mayor O'Neal to Introduce Chair and Vice Chair of Pension Task Force

Mayor Jim O'Neal plans to announce and introduce the Chair and Vice Chair of the Police-Fire Pension Fund Citizen's Task Force at 2:30 this afternoon, Wednesday, April 22.

He will also discuss how the Task Force will proceed.

City Manager Greg Burris presented the City Council with his draft, recommended charge for the Police/Fire Pension Fund Citizen's Task Force on March 31.

To access all the entries made concerning the police/fire pension to date at the City's Web log, City Connect, click this link.

Past entries on the topic, made here, can be located by using the search bar.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Police and Firefighter Pension Task Force Selection Complete

Mayor O'Neal to appoint Chair and Vice Chair by Noon Wednesday

*Slightly edited for clarification*

From a list of 39 second round applicants for the Police-Fire Pension Fund Citizen's Task Force, the Council unanimously approved names which were recommended by City Manager Greg Burris on Tuesday, to fill the remaining 6 spots on the force.

The "Second-Round Applications" list included all of the new applicants who had applied after the newly elected City Council, along with remaining members, decided to reopen the process. Also included, according to City Manager Greg Burris, were about three or four from the previous list of applicants who had received 3 to 5 votes from the new City Council.

"If you look at the totals, it works out pretty cleanly because there are 6 individuals who received either 3, 4 or 5 votes," Burris said.

Burris recommended those 6 who had received between 3 to 5 votes, "be added to the 9 individuals who were previously selected to create the task force of 15."

After a motion was made by Councilman Doug Burlison to accept Burris' recommendation, the Council unanimously approved the applicants by voice vote.

The new task force members are: Lorenzo Baldwin, Gordon Elliot, Carl Herd, Bob Horton, Danny Hyde and David Trippe

The nine who had been previously selected were: Mary Beth Daniels, Jerry Harmison, Kenneth Homan, James Jeffries, Robert L. Jones, Peggy Kubicek, Charles Munsey, Craig Wagoner and Lloyd Young.

Mayor Jim O'Neal anticipates appointing the Chair and Vice Chair by noon tomorrow, after confirmation is made that the selected applicants will accept the positions.

"Let's make sure everybody accepts the position, nobody's got cold feet, then, once they have all definitely accepted, I will appoint the Chair and Vice Chair tomorrow," O'Neal said.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ICMA Director of Ethics Clarifies Conversation with SOS Caller Darin Chappell; SOS Caller Returns the Favor

"JackeHammer" < < < met with SOS (Save Our Springfield) spokesman Darin Chappell this evening after reading the clarification delivered by the International City Manager Association (ICMA) Director of Ethics, Martha Perego, to the City of Springfield.

Perego issued her reply to Assistant City Manager Collin Quigley. It was released to the public today, along with City attorney Dan Wichmer's written report of his findings on the legality of the forwarding of an email by City Manager Greg Burris. If you are not familiar with this story already, you'll find plenty of past entries on the subject at this blog.

The excerpt of Perego's letter which "CityConnect" (the City of Springfield's informational blog) posted at their Web site states:

"Please be assured that I did not draw a conclusion about the appropriateness of the city manager's conduct based on the limited information presented by the caller. I did pose questions to the caller and reviewed the intent of Tenet 7 which advises members to refrain from engaging in any activity on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for elected office. Statements that I "was astounded (or shocked) that any Manager would insert himself into an election as overtly and unethically as Mr. Burris has done," [or] thought the matter was worthy of immediate investigation and/or that the city manager had no legitimate reason for communicating with the union leadership are entirely inaccurate."

While Mr. Chappell had plenty to say this evening, (and we'll get to some of that later) I believe this statement cuts to the heart of the issue, it was one of the last things Mr. Chappell said to me tonight (Tuesday, April 14), "What has happened," Chappell said, "whether it's done on purpose or accident, and I'm perfectly willing to say that it was an accident, okay? I'm not ascribing any motivations to anyone but, whether by purpose or by accident, the words have been pulled away from their context and twisted just a little bit, to where Ms. Perego has no choice but to say, I never said that, but, I never said she did say that, and that's basically where the confusion has arisen."

Now, what has been implied Chappell has claimed Ms. Perego said, and what Ms. Perego actually said to him are two different things, according to Darin Chappell.

When Darin Chappell presented the SOS powerpoint presentation on April 9, this statement was among the many included in that presentation:

I personally spoke with Martha Perego, ICMA Director of Ethics, and, without giving any identifying characteristics of either Mr. Burris, the City, or anyone else involved, Ms. Perego was astounded that any Manager would insert himself into an election as overtly and unethically as Mr. Burris has done.

Ms. Perego went on to say that if a member of that body were to be reported to ICMA for such behavior, an ethics investigation would be immediately undertaken, and that such egregious infractions are taken very seriously by all professional City Managers.

Keeping in mind that Mr. Chappell and I discussed these issues in a windy and chilly parking lot outside the Knights of Columbus building on Grand Street, where a "Young Conservatives" meeting was being held, and did not have the documents' exact wording in front of us, Chappell responded to my question, "What is your take on why she (Ms. Perego) would seem to be suggesting, now, that she never said the things you have reported her as saying?"

"If you look at the media release that the City put out and you read it very carefully," Chappell said, "it says something to the effect that Ms. Perego did not say that she was shocked that any city manager would insert himself into a political campaign such as Mr. Burris has clearly done. She did not say that last line, she said she was shocked that any city manager would insert himself into a political campaign, the 'such as Mr. Burris has done' was me speaking. She couldn't have made a judgement, she didn't know Mr. Burris' name, she didn't know the City of Springfield, she didn't even know my position. I just gave her my name, and just told her I was concerned about something that was happening in my city, some place where I work, you know, I don't live in the City but, I work here and I participate in the city as a taxpayer, and I'm concerned about these things. So, of course she would say [she] never said anything about Mr. Burris acting unethically, she couldn't, there's no way she could have said that."

Chappell continued, "Let me just be very clear. I was careful not to (indicate where the event took place or the parties involved) because the reason I was calling her was to double check my understanding of the code of ethics, specifically tenet 7, and if I was wrong about that, I wanted her to tell me I was wrong so that I didn't look like an absolute fool when I had this media release but, more importantly, I didn't want to besmirch anybody that didn't have something done in their actions that needed to be pointed out. So, I called her, specifically not mentioning any names or characteristics that would identify the city or the city manager or the union president, and I did so just to give her a hypothetical thumbnail sketch of what happened so that I could get her take on it so I would know how to proceed."

"She did not say that it was wrong for a city manager to ever have any contact with the firefighters union, as is cited in the City's media release but, I never suggested that she did say that, I never suggested that at all," Chappell said. "She also did not say that this event was going to have a swift and certain investigation. She can't say that until a formal complaint is filed, and as far as I'm aware, there is no formal complaint...."

Chappell didn't see that the distinction the email had been forwarded to other city administrators had any bearing but thought he had mentioned it to Ms. Perego, "I didn't record the event, you know, we just had a phone conversation," Chappell said.

I don't know folks, I don't want to believe that anyone would intentionally misrepresent what Chappell said Ms. Perego of the ICMA had told him, I'd prefer to think this is all a big misunderstanding. I'll even take some of the blame for the misunderstanding, as I had previously written:

"Chappell said he spoke to Martha Perego, ICMA's director of ethics. "She was shocked that any City Manager would insert himself into a political campaign such as Mr. Burris has clearly done," Chappell said. According to Chappell, Perego said such behavior would cause an ethics investigation to be considered immediately, which might result in censure or even loss of membership in the ICMA."

But, I was quoting Chappell and while Chappell was making an effort to characterize the discussion he had with Ms. Perego, he was adding his own thoughts and completing lines of thinking as he spoke. Chappell said Ms. Perego did not say anything about censure or loss of membership in the ICMA as a result of an ethical breach, he found that information, himself, at the ICMA Web site. "I looked up the ICMA Web site, she did not say anything about censure, she did not say anything about removal of benefits or affiliation but the ICMA Web site says those things, that if someone's found to have broken a code of ethics, those are possible repercussions. I said that, not her."

It goes to show how careful one must be when, both giving second hand information in discussion, and quoting someone regarding second hand information. Because Chappell had made it clear that he did not identify the city he was calling about or the name of the city manager, and I had noted it in my previous reporting on this issue, I assumed people could understand there wouldn't be any way she would have actually made a comment about Burris, specifically. Likewise, the powerpoint presentation stated very clearly that Chappell had not identified the city he was calling about or it's city manager but, apparently it wasn't clear enough for all parties reading it to understand that distinction.

I also need to make clear that I'm not defending Chappell out of any interest other than the want for the issue to be clear and not misrepresented, taken out of context, or misunderstood.

I don't, personally, pretend to know whether Springfield's City Manager Greg Burris has broken tenet 7 of the ICMA code of ethics. Darin Chappell believes he has, "Ms. Perego said that unless there was an active negotiation going on between the City she saw no reason for a city manager, again, this is all hypothetical, for a city manager to be forwarding the position of Council candidates, who are actively seeking office, to the firefighters union," Chappell said. "I believe it's an unethical breach. I believe it's a breach in the ethics because of, and I didn't explain to her MoLiCo (Missouri Liberty Coalition) or anything but, because of MoLiCo, because of the word "blindsided," I have a problem with that as an ethical consideration."

This reporter/blogger feels if any segment of the public has a question about the ethical standing of Mr. Burris' actions, it's better to deal with those questions than let them fester.

City attorney Dan Wichmer has, in his "E-Mail Investigation Report," stated:

"SOS has alleged that Greg breached ICMA ethics guidelines and that he may have violated the City Charter. I have reviewed the matter and find no basis for the claim of a violation of City Code or City Charter. Since ICMA guidelines have no legal effect, I have not included that allegation in this memo since it has no bearing on my conclusion."

The allegation of a violation of the City Charter was not a part of the power point presentation, however, SOS co-spokesman Mark Wright did allege Burris might have violated the City Charter during the course of that press conference.

It also concerns me that simply reporting on contentious issues such as this may have the effect of causing some people in the community to think that I have a personal vendetta against Mr. Burris or am looking for reasons to *attack* the City government.

I live in Springfield just a many City employees live in Springfield, and have a vested interest in this City. I like this City and happen to think it is a beautiful City, that said, I also believe the public has a right to see serious issues treated seriously and reported fairly. Because I feel this is a very serious issue, I have done my best to treat it in a serious fashion, not because I have any animosity, whatsoever, toward Mr. Burris but because some members of the public have expressed a concern over the matter, and they deserve to be heard as much as City officials deserve to be heard.

The clarification of Ms. Perego makes it appear that Mr. Chappell has been less than honest. I don't, personally, believe that to be the case, and just like Mr. Chappell, I'm not ascribing any motivations to anyone but, I do not believe everything pertaining to this issue has been fairly represented, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and I felt Mr. Chappell deserved the same right to clarify his position as Ms. Perego.

I'm sure we can all do a better job of accurately reporting and accurately characterizing both private citizens and public officials.

I hope to see, some day, this community be able to pull together and work together toward common goals, not as adversaries. I would wager that is what most, if not all, the citizens in this community would like to see but, when there are serious issues such as this raised they should be dealt with in honesty and with fairness. Sometimes it seems to me, and this is just me writing my personal thoughts here, sometimes it seems to me that instead of addressing serious issues as they come up, there is a knee-jerk defensive posture taken, and certainly, it could not have been pleasant for Mr. Burris to be asked to resign his position but, there has been an ethical question raised in this case. It needs to be addressed. It has not yet been addressed.

My understanding is that it will be up to the City Council to decide whether the issue needs to be looked into further. They are representatives of the citizens who elected, and very recently, elected some of them. I don't know how they will represent the citizens. Will they represent all of them or some of them? How will they select which citizens they will represent and which citizens they will deem not worthy of addressing?

The City attorney addressed the legal aspect. Will the ethical aspect be addressed on behalf of the citizens who have a concern about the ethical aspect of the issue? Does the ethical aspect of the issue matter?

I guess we'll see what the Council thinks, eventually. To be honest, I'm saddened by the whole thing.

Now, even though this post is very long and I am very tired (it's nearly 3 a.m.), there is one more issue that should be clarified by Mr. Chappell. Since I have defined most of what Chappell stated Ms. Perego did not say I should allow him to clarify for himself what Ms. Perego did say. Some of this may seem repetitious but, I believe it is important to report it.

"Her response was, basically, three-fold," Chappell said. "She said that she was shocked that a city manager would insert himself into a situation like this because of the political implications. Her words were, most city managers wouldn't touch this at all, they just wouldn't deal with it because of what could happen. She did not understand why a sitting city manager would have any reason to contact a firefighter union official about actively, seeking candidates for the City Council, (about) their positions, (by) forwarding an email, especially with a negative characterization but, she didn't understand why he would do that even if there was no characterization

"She also said, and this was her idea, I didn't come up with this, her idea was that unless the city manager, unless the city, is in active negotiations with the firefighters' union contract, that there's no reason for the city manager to be forwarding City Council candidates' positions to the unions, president or not.

"And then, thirdly, if there was a formal complaint, then ICMA would take that seriously and they would investigate thoroughly.

"Those are the three basic things, now, are those direct quotations of her? No, but those reflect the character and the content of everything she said."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Information Director: "[City Attorney] Dan [Wichmer] did not prepare a written report."

As previously reported, Springfield's City Attorney Dan Wichmer recently told Amos Bridges of the "Springfield News-Leader":

"I [Wichmer] have looked into it and I have found nothing that warranted any further investigation by council. But I'll pass my report along (if it's requested)."

The statement was made in regards to whether the forwarding of an email by City Manager Greg Burris to the president of a local firefighter union, was "illegal." [SOS (Save Our Springfield Citizen's Coalition) had determined the action was "unethical" and had called for either Burris' resignation or further City Council action.]

The email contained an ongoing discussion between two Springfield City Council candidates, on the subject of possible modifications to the police and firefighters' return of contribution benefit.

The union's later decision not to endorse the two candidates involved in the emailed discussion was impacted by information contained in the email which Burris had forwarded to the union president. Some people feel that decision, in turn, might have made the difference in the outcome of what turned out to be very close election. They believe because Burris did not ask for or receive permission to forward the email to the union president, and it had affected the union's decision not to endorse the Council candidates involved, he had, essentially, inserted himself into a municipal election. Such an action, SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright said, is against Tenet 7 of the ethical code of the International City Manager Association. That code of ethics, said spokesman for SOS Darin Chappell, is the nationally accepted code of ethical conduct for city managers.

Being the curious sort of reporter/blogger I am, before I retired last evening, I sent an email request to Public Information Director Louise Whall asking to receive the report Mr. Wichmer indicated was available upon request. What I found out was there is no written report for Mr. Wichmer to pass along.

According to Ms. Whall, Wichmer's point was "that he would make the same report, verbally or otherwise, if the Council requests it." She assured me that, "Dan [Wichmer] had confirmed that [her] response to [me] accurately represents his position."

Wichmer has indicated, he reviewed the materials and there was no justification for the allegations, Whall wrote in her email response.

An additional inquiry regarding whether the City Council should be advised by the city attorney regarding ethical questions involving the city manager, since the city attorney answers directly to the city manager and is employed by the city manager, were not addressed by Ms. Whall and neither has there been a response, as yet, to an email sent to Mr. Wichmer regarding that question.

Further, some people have raised the question of whether it is ethical for the city attorney, as an employee answering directly to the city manager, to investigate his employer regarding potential ethical indiscretions of his own employer.

"Dan [Wichmer] works for [City Manager] Greg [Burris]. Greg asked him to review the allegations on the day of the SOS news conference to see if he felt there was any cause for concern," Whall wrote. "Dan did that and said that he doesn't believe they have merit. As I said in the last two responses - if the Council requests any further action on this issue, Dan will comply. I have copied Dan on these e-mails and he can certainly respond further if he would like to add anything else."

Story developing.

Related:

O'Neal leaves Burris probe up to council News-Leader.com Springfield News-Leader (Mayor Elect Asks City Attorney to Put Report in Writing)

"JackeHammer: Springfield City Attorney: City Manager Burris did Nothing Illegal, Actions Warrant no Further Investigation"

"JackeHammer: Save Our Springfield (SOS) Citizen's Coalition Calls for City Manager Burris' Resignation"

"April 10_Hour 2_Who is Vince calling out and why" (KSGF podcast)

"April 10_Hour 3_Free For All" (KSGF podcast)

"Save Our Springfield group calls for resignation News-Leader.com Springfield News-Leader"

"busplunge: Group Calls For Springfield City Manager Called To Resign: Allege Ethical Breach"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Springfield City Attorney: City Manager Burris did Nothing Illegal, Actions Warrant no Further Investigation

In a Springfield News-Leader article published Saturday, April 11, Amos Bridges of the News-Leader reported a statement from Springfield's City Attorney:

"When someone makes the charge that there's something illegal going on, I tend to look into it right away," he [City Attorney Dan Wichmer] said. "I have looked into it and I have found nothing that warranted any further investigation by council. But I'll pass my report along (if it's requested)."

The SOS (Save Our Springfield Citizen's Coalition) held a press conference on April 9, charging City Manager Burris' actions, in forwarding an email to the President of Springfield Firefighters Local 152, had inserted the city manager into election politics, and possibly affected the outcome of the City Council election.

In the email, which was blind carbon copied to the city manager by one of the candidates, two City Council candidates were engaged in an ongoing discussion about possible modifications to certain benefits of the Police and Fire Pension plan. The email's contents were not characterized by the candidates or put into context in any way for Mr. Burris.

The day before the City Council election, Firefighter Union President Tony Kelley called local radio station KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program and stated the email had caused union members to question whether the candidates were lying to them, and had played a considerable role in the union's decision not to endorse the two candidates.

"Whenever we had a candidate forum, one of the questions was, do you support benefit reductions to police and firefighters, and their answer was no, they don't support it. We found that to be disturbing, that I have an email where both of them were exchanging back and forth about what would be a benefit reduction and, you know, two weeks later we have a forum and they both say, 'no, we're not in support of that,' so that played a lot into our decision to not endorse Martz and Ellison." -Firefighter Union President Kelley, April 6 on KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program.

Burris, who did not deny forwarding the email to Kelley, has issued a statement in response and made the email available for public viewing.

SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright have said they believe the action was unethical, based on the International City Manager Association's Code of Ethics, and warrants Burris' resignation or removal from the office of City Manager.

Note: See my previous report on the SOS press conference, entered on Thursday evening, where a link to the KSGF podcast with Tony Kelley's comments was provided. A complete tape recording of the April 9, SOS Press Conference is available.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pension Task Force Application Process Briefly Re-Opened

Final version of Burris' Charge to the Pension Task Force Available

You have between now and Thursday of next week at 5 p.m. (April 16) to apply for the Pension Task Force.

Excerpts from the City's News Release regarding the re-opening of the application process, in no particular order:

The new City Council will select six members to join nine members selected by the outgoing Councilmembers. The outgoing Council initially selected 11 members, but two of them will not serve based on potential conflicts of interest. They are Carol Milhalevich, whose husband works for the City of Springfield in a Public Works position, and Matt Morrow, who is the executive director of the Home Builders Association of Greater Springfield.

The incoming Springfield City Council will accept additional applications for the Police/Fire Pension Fund Citizens' Task Force beginning immediately and continuing through a deadline of 5 p.m., Thursday, April 16, 2009.

Citizens who are still interested in serving on the Task Force, but had not applied previously, are invited to submit an application to be considered for the remaining seats on the Task Force that will be filled by the incoming City Council.

The application form can be submitted online on the City's Web site at: www.springfieldmo.gov . Citizens who don't have access to the Internet can call 864-1010 to have a copy of the application mailed to them. Or they can visit the Busch Building, 840 Boonville Ave., to pick up an application form during regular business hours.

Mayor-elect Jim O'Neal said the new Council will be asked to select six individuals from the new applications, the remaining applicants in the original group of 54, and others who have been recommended by Councilmembers. Individuals who have already submitted applications do not need to re-apply if they still wish to be considered for service on the Task Force.

In other news from the City:

The final version of City Manager Greg Burris' charge to the Police-Fire Pension Task force is available at:

www.springfieldmo.gov/pdfs/budget/pensionTaskCharge.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Save Our Springfield (SOS) Citizen's Coalition Calls for City Manager Burris' Resignation

The headline in a "Springfield News-Leader" article, published in the Thursday, April 9 issue speaks volumes: "Police, fire support affects election wins."

But, what would you think if you knew that Springfield's City Manager Greg Burris had directly effected the Firefighter Union's choice of candidate endorsements? Would it give you pause to question whether the City Manager had inserted himself into a City Council election? Would you consider such actions, if true, to be unethical actions for a city manager? If so, you might be be in agreement with the positions of SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright.

If, as the winning (and the losing) candidates seem to agree, police and firefighter union endorsements and support effect election wins, and the City Manager's actions contributed to the Firefighter Union's decision not to endorse General Seat A and B, City Council candidates Tom Martz and Fred Ellison, certainly, the losses of the firefighter union endorsement factored into their slim losses to their challengers. General Seat A candidate Robert Stephens beat opponent Tom Martz by about 500 votes. General Seat B candidate John Rush beat opponent Fred Ellison by a mere 208 votes, Chappell noted at a press conference early Thursday.

According to Firefighter Union President Tony Kelley, the receipt of an email forwarded to him by City Manager Greg Burris without sender Fred Ellison's permission, caused the Firefighter Union officials who decided which candidates the union would endorse, and which candidates they would not endorse for Springfield City Council, to suspect Martz and Ellison, "were lying to us to try to get our endorsement."

In the email Kelley referred to, General Seat A and General Seat B candidates Tom Martz and Fred Ellison were kicking around ideas which they thought might enhance voter support for a 1 percent sales tax initiative to fund the police and firefighters pension plan, Ellison said. Kelley understood the email to suggest the two candidates favored either reducing or cutting completely their return of contribution pension benefit.

Kelley called the Vincent David Jericho (VDJ) Program the day before the election and said, based on that email forwarded from Burris, the union chose not to endorse Martz and Ellison. At one point, Kelley asked Jericho, "Why would we endorse candidates that lied to us?"

On the VDJ Program Kelley explained:

"What had happened was, we received an email dated December 7th where Mr. Martz and Mr. Ellison were discussing back and forth about benefit reductions, basically, doing away with the return of contributions aspect of our pension plan," Kelley said. "Whenever we had a candidate forum, one of the questions was, do you support benefit reductions to police and firefighters, and their answer was no, they don't support it. We found that to be disturbing, that I have an email where both of them were exchanging back and forth about what would be a benefit reduction and, you know, two weeks later we have a forum and they both say, 'no, we're not in support of that,' so that played a lot into our decision to not endorse Martz and Ellison."

Ellison spoke to JackeHammer after the press conference in which SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright called for Burris' resignation.

"My entire intent in forwarding the email to Mr. Burris was to suggest to him an additional basis for supporting or ensuring the success of the 1 percent sales tax initiative." Ellison said. "I felt like the return of contribution benefit is one of those that many citizens have expressed significant reservations about, and that had the police and firefighters been willing to accept some modification to that benefit that would have, as it were, played well with the voters of Springfield."

Martz and Ellison, members of the Missouri Liberty Coalition, had made several suggestions which were later included in a resolution the City Council passed with the intent to honor if the voters had approved the 1 percent pension sales tax initiative. That initiative failed in February.

Ellison said Kelley had not given him any indication, until the day before the City Council election on the Jericho Program, that he and the other Union officials who decided against endorsing him and Martz for City Council had suspected them of being dishonest with union members.

At issue for Chappell, co-SOS spokesman Mark Wright and KSGF radio talk show host Vincent David Jericho is not who won the election but, that by the forwarding of that email, City Manager Burris had injected himself into the City Council election. An action they view as unethical.

According to Chappell, whether a particular city manager is a member or not, the International City Manager Association's (ICMA) Code of Ethics is the national standard of ethics for city managers. Chappell cited Tenet 7 of the ICMA Code of Ethics:

"Refrain from all political activities which undermine public confidence in professional administrators. Refrain from participation in the election of the members of the employing legislative body."

Chappell, who holds a degree in public administration and teaches public administration, public finance and budgeting at Drury University,* believes that by forwarding an email, unsolicited, to the President of the Firefighter Union, Burris affected the election, and such an action is unethical. He made clear he was not speaking in connection with the university, but as a member of the Save Our Springfield Citizen's Coalition.

Chappell said he spoke to Martha Perego, ICMA's director of ethics. "She was shocked that any City Manager would insert himself into a political campaign such as Mr. Burris has clearly done," Chappell said. According to Chappell, Perego said such behavior would cause an ethics investigation to be considered immediately, which might result in censure or even loss of membership in the ICMA, however, Chappell said, "Mr. Burris is not a member of the ICMA, to my knowledge."

In response to a question, Chappell said that while he had not identified the city or named Springfield's city manager specifically when speaking to Ms. Perego, he had informed the Director of Ethics that the email was an "FYI," and, he reported, "she asked if the City is in active negotiations with the Union concerning a renegotiation of benefits and I said no, not at all." Chappell said she said, "there is absolutely no reason that the City Manager should have been in contact with the Union officials about the positions or possible positions or thought processes of two candidates for City Council. There is no justification for it whatsoever, from an ethical perspective," he said.

Co-SOS spokesman Mark Wright said such action also violates Springfield's City Charter, Wright read from Section 6.11 of the Charter, which, in part, reads:

"No appointive salaried officer or employee of the city shall during the hours when he is on duty engage in any form of political activity calculated to favor or improve the chances of any political party or any person seeking or attempting to hold political office, nor shall he engage in any political activity when not on duty to such an extent that his efficiency during working hours will be impaired or that he will be tardy or absent from his work."

"Candidates that may have been assisted in their campaigns, and who were elected, may feel beholden to the City Manager and lose their effectiveness as public officials," Wright said. "Other Council members may feel intimidated by the action of the City Manager and feel less inclined to challenge him or her on positions that may not be in the best interest of the citizens they represent."

The forwarded email in question was generated by Burris at 7:48 a.m. on Monday, December 8. Burris forwarded it to Tony Kelley, Deputy City Manager Evelyn Honea, Assistant City Manager Collin Quigley, Assistant Fire Chief David Hall, and Mike Evans. While earlier portions of the email Ellison had blind carbon copied to Burris included several earlier exchanges, and as many as 12 email addresses, including the Missouri Liberty Coalition's google group address, the email in question was only sent by Mr. Ellison to three other email addresses. Those three recipients were Tom Martz; Carl and Linda Herd; and James Hornaday Jr.

Burris, Chappell said, had "warned" the 5 recipients to whom he forwarded the email with the note, "FYI, so that no one gets blind-sided by upcoming comments or suggestions by the Missouri Liberty Coalition."

Whether Burris intended it to have an effect on the City Council election or not, it is clear that it, in the words of Tony Kelley, "played a lot into our decision to not endorse Martz and Ellison," and as the News-Leader reported, "Police, fire support affects election wins," so, in essence, by effecting the Firefighter Union's choice of endorsement, whether intentional or not, Burris affected the City Council election.

Fred Ellison does not intend to challenge the election, "With regard to the election, the election is water under the bridge at this point so, there's nothing that's going to change the outcome of the election but, I certainly wish that this had not been a factor in the decision of the voters," Ellison said.

"I think it's very unfortunate that Mr. Burris has placed himself in this position and I really regret all of the negative sentiment that will result in the continuing damage to trust of the citizens of Springfield and their city and their city government," Ellison said. "That's the most dangerous thing that these actions have done, in that it's continued that atmosphere of mistrust the citizens feel toward the city government."

Beyond calling for the City Manager to resign or, if he refuses to resign, calling on the Council to fire Mr. Burris, Chappell and Wright have no plans to take other action but, Chappell believes a line must be drawn, "When the Director of Ethics at the ICMA (International City Manager Association) is shocked by this behavior, the City Council should be as well, the citizens should be as well," he said.

The City of Springfield issued a press release late Thursday afternoon with Burris' statement in response to the charges that he had acted unethically by forwarding the email exchange between the two City Council candidates to the Firefighter Union:

"It’s disappointing to me that this group is trying to shift the focus of the City Council election outcome to one single e-mail exchange from four months ago instead of urging the community to pull together to support the newly elected Council members. There is simply no basis for their allegations. Nor have they approached me directly with their concerns since a phone call from a Journal Broadcasting radio show host on Monday asking for my recollection of the e-mail, which I didn’t even remember from December.

The e-mail they are citing already had several Missouri Liberty Coalition members copied on it and there was no indication it was supposed to be considered confidential, especially considering it was sent to a public official and would be open under the Missouri Sunshine Law. I simply forwarded it to the appropriate staff members who were involved in the police-fire pension tax proposal as an FYI to let them know points that Coalition members may raise at presentations or elsewhere. I’ve worked very hard to establish trust and open lines of communication with all of our employees, including representatives of our employee groups.

I’m also disappointed because I have similarly tried to respect the mutual interest I share with the SOS group in solving our pension underfunding problem. I have stated repeatedly that their proposal would be forwarded to the Citizens’ Task Force for their review and consideration and I forwarded a whitepaper prepared about the Capital Improvements Program to Mr. Wright and Mr. Chappell for their background information as a courtesy." - Greg Burris, City Manager

General Seat A Candidate Tom Martz said the email exchange was part of an ongoing discussion the candidates had been having for months as they sought solutions to the underfunded pension plan. "What I said prior to that forum (December 18) has no bearing," Martz said. "I've been consistent."

Chappell pointed out that the candidates had never deviated from their position that they did not favor a reduction in return of contribution benefits after December 18, 2008.

It is unclear why the Firefighter Union did not question them for clarification on the issue.

*Correction: Darin Chappell is an instructor at Missouri State University. Yesterday, during the news conference Mark Wright stated Chappell was an instructor at Drury University, I regret the error. -Jackie

Related:

"April 10_Hour 2_Who is Vince calling out and why" (KSGF podcast)

"April 10_Hour 3_Free For All" (KSGF podcast)

"Save Our Springfield group calls for resignation News-Leader.com Springfield News-Leader"

"busplunge: Group Calls For Springfield City Manager Called To Resign: Allege Ethical Breach"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fire Chief Barry Rowell Delivered his Letter of Resignation Today

Fire Chief Barry Rowell delivered a letter of resignation to City Manager Greg Burris today.

In the letter, Rowell wrote he was resigning, "in order to pursue other opportunities and interests."

Rowell noted the narrow failure of the police and fire pension sales tax and wrote, "I am proud and stand in awe at the dedication of the men and women of this Department who continue to give whatever it takes to keep this community safe."

Rowell also issued what could be considered as a warning:

"There are choices this community faces now that will determine whether this level of protection will continue. Part of my job has been to identify the risks that could impact the community and provide the details of how to plan to respond to them. The Council and the citizens of this community must decide what level of protection is desired, and at what cost. Keep in mind the single greatest resource and the greatest expense of any emergency agency are its personnel. There is no way to provide the level of protection we have come to expect with any fewer personnel."

Following is an excerpt of the City's news release:

"Springfield Fire Chief Barry Rowell has submitted his intention to retire, effective in June, after working for the City for nearly 25 years, including serving as Chief since June 2007.

Chief Rowell has served the department as a Firefighter, Rescue and Salvage Specialist, Captain, Battalion Chief, and he has held Assistant Chief responsibilities for both technical services and operations.

During his tenure as Fire Chief, the Springfield Fire Department achieved accreditation by the Center for Public Safety Excellence in 2008, which was the culmination of a six-year process that Rowell supervised prior to being named Fire Chief. Springfield is the only metropolitan department in Missouri to hold the accreditation and one of only 123 of some 30,000 departments across the nation to receive this accreditation.

The Springfield Fire Department also received a satisfaction rate of 86 percent on the 2008 Citizens Survey, which was the highest level cited for any City service. In 2008, Fire Department employees documented 18 instances where they were able to save lives during 14 medical emergencies, three fires and one water rescue.

"I am proud and stand in awe at the dedication of the men and women of this department who continue to give whatever it takes to keep this community safe," Rowell said. Rowell also coordinated the Fire Department's response to the January 2007 ice storm, during which no lives were lost in Springfield related to the natural disaster emergency response. He served the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a community-relations representatives by helping relocate Hurricane Katrina victims in 2005.

City Manager Greg Burris said he will make an exception to the ongoing City General Fund hiring freeze to fill the Chief's position before his retirement is effective by leaving open another administrative position in the Department.

"It didn't take long for me to develop a deep respect for Chief Rowell," Burris said. "He's a solid, well-trained leader possessing a quiet confidence. Barry is respected by the Fire Department staff, City administrators, and the community. I congratulate the Chief on his professional successes, but am sorry to see him leave. He will be missed.""


----------end excerpt----------

News releases from the City of Springfield can be accessed at the City Web site (http://www.springfieldmo.gov), where additional biographical information is also available through this link:

http://www.springfieldmo.gov/egov/mgmt_team.html.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~