2014-02-10 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

candidates. Ms. Pumm stated that her first indication was when she checked the tax st records on January 21. Mr. Crow questioned whether pursuant to Council’s Rules, the residency, unpaid taxes and municipal user fees had been checked for candidates Glickert, Kraft, Fuller, Jennings and Smotherson. Ms. Pumm stated that they had been. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Pumm for an explanation of her next steps once she ascertained that there was an issue with the requirements for candidate Hales. Ms. Pumm stated that once she determined that Mr. Hales did not meet the residency requirement of maintaining residency for three consecutive years, which is pursuant to the City Charter, she consulted with the City Attorney to get an understanding of what the next steps should be. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Pumm if she had consulted with any of the following person or persons: other City Clerks, the Municipal League, the City Manager, the Mayor, members of Council or any residents of UCity. Ms. Pumm stated that she had not. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Pumm if she had consulted with the St. Louis Board of Elections. Ms. Pumm stated that she had. Mr. Crow then asked Ms. Pumm whether she had independently made the decision not to certify Mr. Hales. Ms. Pumm stated that she had made the decision not to certify Mr. Hales after consultation with the City Attorney. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Pumm whether she was the author of the letter dated January 28, 2014, addressed to Mr. Hales. Ms. Pumm stated that she was. Mr. Crow questioned whether the City Attorney or any other member of staff had any input on drafting the letter. Ms. Pumm stated that she had received advice from the City Attorney as to what should be included in the letter. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Pumm if the City Attorney had advised her to switch the word “resident” to “citizen” and to include “have not lived for three consecutive years”. Ms. Pumm provided no response. Mr. Crow asked the City Attorney when and how she had first been contacted about this matter. Ms. Forster stated that she had received an email from Ms. Pumm around the twenty-second or twenty-third of January, indicating that she had obtained Mr. Hales’ personal property tax receipts and occupancy permits and discovered that there was a discrepancy with respect to his residency over the past three years. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Forster whether she had discussed this matter with anyone other than the City Clerk. Ms. Forster stated that she did advise the City Manager that there was a possible residency issue with one of the candidates. Mr. Crow asked Katie if she had discussed this matter with any member of Council. Ms. Forster stated that she had not. Mr. Crow then asked her if she had discussed this matter with anyone from the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners. Ms. Forster stated that she did have a conversation with the Election Board to request a Conflict of Interest Waiver in order to confer with the City, because one of the partners in her firm is their legal representative. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Forster if she had discussed this matter with anyone from the Missouri Municipal League. Ms. Forster stated that although she has not had any personal contact with anyone from the Municipal League she did review some of their publications on decertification by a City Clerk. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Forster if she was familiar with the case of King vs. Walsh. Ms. Forster stated that she had briefly read the case and is conscious of the fact that it expands the definition of residency beyond just the physical location. Mr. Crow noted that this was a 40 year old case, and what he is trying to figure out is how these two phrases, “citizen” and “has not lived for three consecutive years,” neither of which seem to comport with residency, was included in a letter to the candidate. Ms. Forster stated that citizen, resident and domicile are used 5