2014-02-10 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Price asked Ms. Pumm if she was aware of the 2006 Resolution. Ms. Pumm stated that at the time of this event she was not aware of the Resolution. Mr. Price asked Ms. Pumm if she was the City Clerk in 2006. Ms. Pumm stated that she started working in this position right before the 2006 election. Mr. Price asked Mr. Sharpe if he was aware of the decertification of any electoral candidate for the office of City Council. Mr. Sharpe stated that he was not. Ms. Carr stated that the past couple of weeks have again called attention to the role the City has played in the election process. She stated that during her election two years ago campaign signs were wrongfully removed by City staff from a polling place on Election Day, and that it was not until four o’clock in the afternoon and after multiple emails from an attorney that the City relented and the signs were replaced. Ms. Carr stated that that the City’s actions were a violation of her First Amendment interests and an attempt to suppress the vote. She stated that the City’s excuse was that they had an ordinance which prohibited the placement of signs on City property, and that that ordinance also applied to Election Day. Ms. Carr stated that campaign signs had never been removed from a polling place before. Ms. Carr stated that any City ordinance prohibiting placement of signs on public property is superseded by State statutes and the Constitution. Ms. Carr noted that many were angered by the removal of the signs, but in the interest of moving forward she personally decided to let the issue drop after being assured by the City Manager that the Code would be changed and that this would never happen again. Ms. Carr stated that in her opinion, this is a discussion of process and policy, not politics – what happened and how to prevent this from happening again. She stated that there are some residents of this City who do not appear to be comfortable with confrontation, even when something very egregious occurs. And while she noted it is their right to recoil from a confrontation, but she believes that you cannot solve your problems unless you “look the dragon in the eye.” She stated that there is a danger to political apathy, which is best illustrated by this quote from Pastor Martin Niemöller. “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communist and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Trade Unionist and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.” Ms. Carr stated that in the interest of determining what happened, and why, she believes that this must be discussed because it is a learning moment. Ms. Carr then requested of the City Manager, Mr. Walker, that she be able to address some questions to the City Attorney. Ms. Carr stated that she is in possession of several confidential memoranda from the City Attorney and without breaking the confidentiality; she noted that there was no discussion of the legal definition of residency. She noted that since the definition of residency is at the heart of the issue and asked Ms. Forster why she had not addressed residency with the City Clerk before she made her decision – or was this addressed. Ms. Forster stated that there were oral discussions (not in writing) between her, the City Manager and briefly with the City Clerk, regarding case law, the expanded definition of residency and that it encompassed intent, as well as the physical location. Ms. Carr asked Ms. Forster that even yet, whether she still felt that the occupancy permits covered the City Clerk’s determination of residency. Ms. Carr further stated that she would prefer to think of this as defined rather than expanded, because residency was defined by the Missouri State Supreme Court over 40 years ago. She noted there was no definition of residency in the City’s Charter. 9