2014-02-10 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Carr stated that the only two possibilities with respect to this situation is that either the City has a Council that consists of haves and have-nots, or the City has a rogue staff that does not understand what their responsibilities are, but either way we have a problem. She stated that as someone who has experience with disenfranchisement by members of Council and the City, she deeply sympathizes with Mr. Hales, and all who are unjustly treated. Ms. Carr stated that there are some who would rail at her for using the term shameful, but in fact that is what it is when you compare it to the election certification of 2006, where Council said let the people decide – that we will not make these people pay to be on the ballot. She asked why this City and Council behaved so differently this time. She stated that as uncomfortable as this is, she will not be silent when injustice occurs here in her city, lest there be no one left to speak for her. Mayor Welsch stated that she would like to clarify what happened in 2006. She stated that in 2006 the candidates were certified for election by the tenth Tuesday prior to the April election. The minutes to which her colleagues are referring were from an emergency meeting called by members of Council when the City Manager, Frank Ollendorf, one of two employees of the City Council decided on his own to sue the City Clerk, the other employee of the Council, without any involvement by Council. Mayor Welsch stated that Council did advise the City Manager that this was not his business, not his issue, and that he was not to get involved, but in no way were they involved in the certification/decertification of the candidates, which as mandated by law is the responsibility of the City Clerk. She stated that in 2006 City Council was in no way involved in the certification of candidates, and in no way wanted to be, as should be the position of this Council at this time. CITIZEN’S COMMENTS Jeff Hales, 7471 Kingsbury Mr. Hales stated that this has been a remarkable week, to say the least. He stated that he had appeared tonight for two reasons. First, to ask Council how all of this had happened, and second, to provide Council with his testimony, since up until this point no one from the City has bothered to ask. st Mr. Hales stated that he had filed to run for City Council in the 1 Ward and that the day after he had filed a citizen sent an email to the City Clerk challenging his residency and demanding that he be disqualified. He stated that what followed apparently was an extensive investigation by the City Clerk and the City Attorney. Mr. Hales stated that somewhere between 6 and 5 p.m. on the day of the certification he received an email, with an attached copy of a letter refusing to certify his candidacy on the grounds that he failed to meet the Charter mandated residency requirement. He stated that at no point was he notified of the complaint, contacted by the City Clerk or given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Mr. Hales stated that he would like for it to be perfectly clear that he is a resident of UCity, and that he has been a resident since purchasing his first home in 2003. And that he does not dispute the fact that there was a time between the sale and purchase of his new home, also in UCity, where he temporarily stayed with his mother who lives outside of the City.Mr. Hales stated that Missouri law has been clear on residency since the 1972 Supreme Court case of King vs. Welsch, over Kit Bond, who was a candidate for governor that had been out of the State for many years. He stated that the Court determined that a person can temporarily reside outside of his place of residence and not acquire a new residence. The Court also 12