2014-02-10 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

several members of Council called a meeting to defend other candidates who had not paid their taxes. He stated that this Special Meeting commenced at 3:05 p.m.; that Mr. Sharpe received a call informing him of the meeting at 2:50 p.m.; that Council was unable to reach Ms. Colquitt; that the Mayor was out of town and despite the fact that he was having similar issues and he was not on the list to defend for justice.. Mr. Price stated that he had received a copy of the minutes from the meeting, which was held on February 17, 2006, wherein the second paragraph reads as follows: “Under questioning City Attorney, John Mulligan informed Council members st that he was prepared to petition the court on Tuesday, February 21 to order the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners to remove the names of Michael Glickert and Eric Reese from the ballot.” It further stated that “This litigation was ordered by the City Manager, Ollendorf, who was acting as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the City because of a putative administrative error by a City employee.” “It was pointed out that the City Clerk, Joyce Pumm, had called the County Board of Elections to determine the type of action that should be taken and she was advised to call the City Attorney, which she did. At this point, Councilmembers Wagner and Welsch stressed that Mr. Mulligan should have investigated this with Ms. Pumm and City Council, since the City Clerk works for the Council. However City Council was not informed of this situation. Many phone calls; at least twenty were made, according to Mr. Ollendorf, to determine what action was needed. The City Clerk was included in that discussion.“ Mr. Price stated that while his hope is that the Mayor will take the same position that she held in 2006; that the City Clerk works for City Council, the minutes go on to state that “A Resolution was introduced by Mr. Sharpe, and adopted on December th the 11, 2006, whereby any candidate agreed by a determination made by the City Clerk pursuant to this Resolution may within 5 days after the City Clerk notifies the candidate of the determination, file with the City Clerk a written request for a hearing. The City Clerk shall hold the hearing within 5 days thereafter, and all interested parties may appear at the hearing either in person or by the attorney, and present evidence concerning the matter at issue. The City Clerk shall make a final determination as soon as practical thereafter”. Mr. Price then asked Ms. Forster if this Resolution was applicable to the issue being discussed here today. Ms. Forster stated that she had not been made aware of the Resolution until last Thursday, and that she was unsure of what was meant by a hearing. She further stated that as of today, the Resolution has no standing since there is an order by the Judge stating that the City Clerk can only approve or disapprove, and that she should not be conducting investigations. Mr. Price asked Ms. Forster whether the outcome of this issue would have been different had she been made aware of the Resolution. Ms. Forster stated that Section 1115.333 requires that a challenge be made via a Writ of Mandamus that is submitted to the Court and not necessarily back to the City Clerk. So while Council certainly has the authority to adopt a Resolution if it conflicts with an existing statute, the statute will take precedent over the Resolution. Mr. Price state so that any resolution paced by this council means absolutely nothing. Ms. Forster stated no it is not that they don’t mean anything but if there is a conflict with existing State statute the State statute will trump it. Mr. Price said so what City Attorney said is that Council should not pass resolutions. Ms. Forster stated that you can pass resolutions but if there is a portion of the resolution that is in conflict with the State statute or constitutional prevision then the statue of the constitution will trump what the City proposes or to enforce. 8