2014-02-10 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hales either owned or rented a home in University City that he could always return to, then he would have met the requirement, but that was not the case. Mr. Pace stated that he had e-mailed the information he obtained to the City Clerk within 24 hours of the closing of the candidate filing. He stated that he had also emailed a copy to Mr. Crow, as it was his understood that Mr. Crow’s partner Tom Peters had collected signatures for Mr. Hales, and thereby placing Mr. Hales immediately in the loop with respect to this challenge seemed like the decent thing to do. He stated that submitting this information to the City Clerk had also seemed like the logical thing to do since Ms. Pumm was the City employee designated to review petition signatures, paid taxes and fees. Mr. Pace stated that according to Ms. Elsie Glickert, no one has ever made a residency challenge, so there was no precedent on how this should be handled. He stated that Mr. Hales’ Petition to the Circuit Court alleged that he, Greg Pace, had been directed by, and was acting in coordination with Mr. Kraft, as well as other members of Council and City employees, although no evidence was offered to corroborate these allegations. Mr. Pace stated that he had acted alone on this matter and has been doing this kind of research in University City for roughly the last six years. He stated that if these types of accusations are any indication of what kind of Council member Mr. Hales will be, then a pox on his house, wherever that may be. Mr. Pace stated that the day after sending his first e-mail to the City Clerk he had sent another email to the City Clerk arguing that the Charter required 36 months of continued residency, but that was all of the contact he had made with the City Clerk, and he has made any contact whatsoever with the City Attorney. Mr. Pace stated that he has no desire to have any influence; perceived or otherwise, in this matter and that his only objective is to have his arguments stand or fall on their merits. Mr. Pace stated that while Mr. Hales’ petition was upheld by the Circuit Court placing him on the ballot, it should be noted that the Court did not rule on the question of residency. He stated that under the City Charter Council has the authority to petition the Circuit Court and ask that the Charter be enforced, otherwise what would be the point of having a Charter. Mr. Pace concluded by stating that both Ms. Pumm and Ms. Forster had reviewed his evidence, along with their own and made the determination that Mr. Hales did not meet the residency requirement. If Council wishes to second guess the City Clerk and City Attorney they should be reminded that Mr. Crow was made aware of this challenge from the very beginning, so the opportunity for Council to meet, review the situation and take a proactive stance was there, and yet they did nothing. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mr. Price stated that for the record, he would like to read a statement made during the 2006 Special Meeting that seems to put all of this into context. “Council members Wagner and Welsch both stated that it is up to the Complainant to handle this, not our City. It gives the appearance that the City is taking the side of the complaining candidate. Further, Ms. Welsch asked why in one week did the City Manager attempt to take the drastic step of going from a complaint by one candidate, or one citizen on the ballot to the Court.” Mr. Price stated that in the matter now before Council the City had taken a complaint from one person and rushed to judgment in order to keep that person off the ballot. So perhaps Mayor Welsch was so adamantly against this same type of action in 2006, because she thought that the other candidate; who he had defeated, was going to win the election. Mr. Price stated that when certain people had 14