Paid professionals needed to lead

As a candidate for council myself I have similar and objectionable thoughts on this same issue. I do believe the Mayor as well as council be paid for the time they spend conducting the business of the city. I don't however want to see these positions become paid to the point that it becomes a career for people. If you pay just enough to compensate the individual for their time it will also require them to maintain the position they had before being elected. As it stands right now the city does not want the working class person to serve on council as they overload the docket and have meetings during hours of which only the business owner or a retired individual could make.

At issue is do we really want a paid Mayor which does nothing but the business of the city or do we continue with a ring master directing the circus ? A paid mayor would allow for the city manager staff to shrink which would free up money to pay members of council and the Mayor for the direction in which the city heads in.

At this present point I would hope that those running for council positions have the BEST interest of the people and the city as their highest regard and NOT some stepping stone in order to pad there pockets in some manner. As for me the city needs direction and spending its way into oblivion is not the direction we should be heading in, we need to bulk up on police and fire department personnel before the crime rate in this city goes even higher which will also ultimately have employers leaving the city.

In some aspects I agree with Jack Breesee, however I doubt I agree with him on the manner of which he was speaking as I do believe those that have concern for the city can do a professional job even without the pay incentive. The questions asked by our newest council members have been a breathe of fresh air and four new members along with a new mayor should gel nicely into the mix.

I chose not to follow through obtaining signatures to have myself placed on the ballot for mayor. After speaking to many people associated with both current and former city government, and given the way in which recent City Council meetings have been conducted, it is clear that a part-time, voluntary City Council and mayor are no longer adequate to the task facing them.

Our city needs not only management, but leadership as well. The leadership this city needs can only be provided by paid professionals dedicated to their jobs and accountable for their actions. The current system provides for only volunteers with sufficient resources to be elected to a largely ceremonial position. The current one-cent sales tax issue makes clear that the city manager position, however well-paid, is not able to address all of Springfield's issues singlehanded. To see any real progress in the area, the city charter must be updated for the 21st century.

Jack Breesee, Springfield

Doug,

This is exactly why you beat Mr. Griggs a while back and this is the type of action that the people are looking for. So what your the lone ranger on many points of contention at this point, sometimes you have friends but in all many people are egging you on in private. Hi HO Silver and away

Our Voice

Private meeting deserved protest

Burlison made right decision to criticize pre-council gathering.

November 5, 2008

Springfield City Councilman Doug Burlison does not have the political savvy or polish of some other members of the city's governing body.

And for that, we're often thankful.

Burlison chided some council colleagues after five of them last week appeared to hold a private, short, secret meeting -- an apparent violation of the state Sunshine Law because five members amounts to a quorum of the nine-member council.

Using the sharp words "colluding ahead of time," Burlison said the hushed huddle happened prior to the Oct. 27 council meeting.

It surely didn't win him any popularity points with his council colleagues, but they need to not only hear him but heed him, too.

Most insulting is that the little pre-meeting was designed to try to stop a matter from being aired that many city residents had come to the chambers to hear discussed: a ban of guns in city parks.

Adding injury to that insult was that the huddle took place right on the council dais -- in front of a crowd of citizens waiting to hear the gun ban discussed.

The five huddling council members were Cindy Rushefsky, Dan Chiles, Mary Collette, John Wylie and Mayor Tom Carlson (who technically is a councilman, too).

At least some of them summoned City Attorney Dan Wichmer to join the group, asking how they could table the agenda item that would trigger the gun ban discussion: a list of legislative priorities for 2009.

Wichmer -- to his credit -- advised the group to stop speaking about the matter privately and to simply start the meeting, call for the legislative priorities to be tabled and explain why. Eventually, no discussion on the matter was held.

Burlison said the official meeting started late because of what he calls the "powwow." Records show the 7 p.m. meeting started at 7:04.29.

No, it wasn't a long huddle, but it shouldn't have happened.

Wichmer said no Sunshine violation occurred because only three of the five were discussing the tabling of the legislative priorities: Carlson, Rushefsky and Wylie. The other two talked about how many people in the audience were concerned about a pet issue.

Still, even if Wichmer's description of the separate discussions is accurate, the private talks had a common theme: the audience waiting to interact with council.

Too bad that never got to happen. We're glad that at least one member of the council recognizes that as a problem.

This editorial is the view of the News-Leader Editorial Board.

King Tom ??

'The council makes its own rules,' mayor says

Meeting runs afoul of procedural rules.

Wes Johnson • News-Leader • October 29, 2008

• Read Comments(25)
• Recommend (3)
• Print this page
• E-mail this article
• Share
  • Del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Buzz up!
• 

Robert's Rules of Order went out the window during Monday's Springfield City Council meeting.

And City Attorney Dan Wichmer said his advice on how to deal with one particular vote was ignored by Mayor Tom Carlson.

"We pointed out they were free to take my advice or not, and they didn't," Wichmer said.

The drama began even before the meeting started, when a group of five council members appeared to meet with Wichmer in council chambers to talk about the list of legislative priorities for 2009.

The News-Leader lodged a complaint with City Clerk Brenda Cirtin, asking that the council conduct its business in open session.

Cirtin later did convey that request, but Wichmer said there was no problem because only three council members -- Cindy Rushefsky, Dan Chiles and John Wylie -- were involved.

That's not enough for a quorum, he said.

A council committee previously reviewed the priority list, but the full council saw it officially for the first time Monday night. The Finance and Administration Committee members are Gary Deaver, Ralph Manley, Denny Whayne and Doug Burlison.

Rushefsky said she wanted to know what mechanisms were available to table the legislative priority list, because she felt the council didn't have enough time to study them.

Two other council members -- Mary Collette and Dan Chiles -- seemed to be part of the informal discussion before the meeting began.

But Collette said she and Chiles were talking about a pet issue, not the legislative priorities.

Her colleagues weren't conducting city business out of public view, she said.

"I can understand how the public would get that," she said.

Councilman Doug Burlison said he thought the informal gathering was "less than appropriate."

"Do we need to take a vow of silence before we take our seats? No," he said. "But a majority of council colluding ahead of time, it at least gives the appearance to people that something's going on."

The council ran into difficulty later in open session after Rushefsky officially called to table the legislative priority list.

Her motion was seconded, but Wylie proposed an amendment that would remove two of the more controversial legislative priorities from the list. He wanted a ban on weapons in city parks and opposition to collective bargaining to be voted on at a later date.

That's when the council ran afoul of Robert's Rules.

"The council is bound by Robert's Rules," Wichmer said. "A motion to table an item is nondebatable. They had discussions about the motion to table, which we pointed out they couldn't do."

The mayor sidestepped the advice.

"I can do whatever I want," he told Wichmer. "The council makes its own rules."

Wichmer said the council can ignore Robert's Rules if it votes to suspend them.

"There was no vote to suspend the rules," he said.

The council ultimately voted to table the legislative priority list.

After the meeting, Rushefsky said she walked out with Wichmer and asked him "what's the foul if everybody agrees on the rules?"

"He said it could invalidate the vote," Rushefsky recalled. "But the bottom line is we did what we intended to do -- refer it back to council as a whole to talk about what our legislative priorities should be."

Follow up from a concern individual about the C.U. proposed rate increases

Howdy everyone! Currently, the proposed rate increase that Southern Star Central has requested is under "suspension". Therefore, Tom and Fred, you were correct in your assertions at the last council meeting! And, C.U. - based upon some documentation that Joel Alexander provided to CFP - will be assessed some 40% more for their rate to get natural gas provided. The rate suspension is due to expire on Nov. 1, 2008; let's sit back and see if it does.

Questions:

1) how does C.U. know that the suspension will not be continued beyond Nov. 1, 2008? And, in fact, won't remain in force until the hearings are held in May, 2009 or later?

2) what insurances/assurances are in place to provide for C.U. customers actually receiving "refunds" for gas charges paid to C.U.? And, when will those refunds be made to the rate-payers? How will those refunds, if paid, be made, cash or a credit on future bills?

Naturally, I can think of many more questions. But, as I see this issue, it is like going down to the local gas station and paying $4.97 per gallon of gas this afternoon, because oil prices will be going up. As we all know, that is not the case! Oil prices are actually coming down. So, sometime in the future, let's say six months from now, I go back to the gas station where I made my purchase and ask them, "How much do you owe me for the gas I bought back in Sept.?", their reply, "...refund? What refund? That was the price then and that's what you were charged." Then, adding insult to injury, they respond, "I didn't have to pay the wholesaler any more for the gas you bought, but I thought I'd have to, so that's what I based my pricing on." And, "...since I'm the only station in town, you'll just have to live with that."

In the above example, the Attorney General would get involved (purportedly) and there would be an investigation. Who will provide the same level of oversight over C.U. at the local level? No one! Think about it. The current City Council members are, for the most part, not going to be around when the you know what hits the fan. Why? Because the bills for the increased gas rates won't show up until after they leave office. C.U. has stated that they will not bill the increased charges until Apr. '09, which means the charges will be due in May '09...after the rats have bailed from the 'sinking ship'! The newly elected council members, along with those remaining in office, will be faced with the problem. Of course, the C.U. customers are left "holding the bag" for the next three years...the term approved by current City Council for the rates to be effective!

The Mayor has "suggested" holding-off on a vote since two council members will not be present for the meeting on 9-29-08. In that event, the C.U. Annual Budget and Rate Increase will "pass" automatically pursuant to the City Charter provisions. Therefore, it is imperative that council vote on this issue at that meeting and either pass it or reject it!

Final Question: How can the citizens demand and require City Council to vote on this issue in an attempt to halt passage of the budget and rate increase? Should we discuss this question at the 9-27-09 meeting?

Would like to have your thoughts and input.

thoughts on city council meeting

The back patting session from M.S.U. was pretty tough getting through along with the back patting session from the council as well. I would have loved to see someone ask how much revenue could be generated out of those buildings if a private sector entity owned them instead of a university. I would also like to hear how much state and federal funding has gone into this project vs private sector cash. One dissenting voice spoke up on this issue and his main concern was the football team losing over one million annually. Granted this type of negative cash flow makes it incredibly hard for people to be able to afford going to college for an education. I guess my vision of someday having a nationally ranked football team here is a pipe dream.

Council by a 5-4 vote determined that they are in fear of their lives every time they do the business of the city. To be fair a motion was made to vote down this resolution and replace it with a resolution just placing metal detectors at the Busch building. This would have been a far superior move then the one that was approved tonight. That motion had every thing to do with the safety of city employees and I can appreciate that motion, however I believe the following vote shows that council members just have the inclination they are much more important then what they really are.

Hats off to Councilman Manley as he spoke with passion and clarified the common sense position quite well and deserved to be applauded after he was done speaking. Councilwoman Rushefsky made some good points on why metal detectors are installed in courthouse buildings but detested the idea of having to have them installed in the City Hall building. Councilman Burlison made the motion that the Busch building might be in need of security but detested the idea of an additional barrier between citizens and government officials. I can gladly say that Mayor Carlson gave a reasoned, and passionate address on why spending this money on these security measures would be wrong and he truly had the fiscal need to secure this funding instead of spending it on something which isn't needed nor do other governmental agencies spend money on these types of security measures.

It appears that Councilman Chiles is a little too passionate on the subject as he interjected mental illness, economic collapse, and his own gun ownership as reasons to be in favor of metal detectors. Mr Chile's also discussed an area of terrorism that I haven't read about yet, where people give kids weapons so they can attend city council meetings and thus the kid takes out the weapon and mows down the city council members. Dan a little decaf for the next meeting would be quite helpful. Councilwomen Collette spoke of the need to do something which is far superior to doing nothing. Councilmen Whayne was pretty incoherent with his want and need for metal detectors and councilmen Wylie actually scares me that he has sat on council for as long as he has. I won't give an opinion on Councilmen Deaver as he needs NO introduction.

After the vote I left as it was getting late and I was developing a migraine.

pension/retirement news

Springfield City Council has approved the budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008. Cuts of about 7% in the budgets of most departments will allow the City to contribute an extra $5,200,000 to the Police and Fire Pension Plan in the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year. This additional contribution is required by a new state law which mandates that pension contributions must meet the fully required amount at least once every five years. The following table shows the contributions that the City of Springfield has made over the last four years:

	Covered	Actuarial	Employer	Net Pension	Accumulated
Year Ending	Payroll	Requirement	Contribution	Obligation	Obligation
06/30/2005	23,866,000	7,318,828	6,795,690	523,138	523,138
Actual		30.67%	28.47%
06/30/2006	23,747,000	9,850,865	6,831,133	3,019,732	3,542,870
Actual		41.48%	28.77%
06/30/2007	23,864,000	10,345,517	7,388,016	2,957,501	6,500,371
Actual		43.35%	30.96%
06/30/2008	23,500,000	10,751,250	7,775,050	2,976,200	9,476,571
Projected		45.75%	33.09%

As of June 30, 2008, the City of Springfield will have failed to pay $ 9.5 million in required contributions over the last four years, and is faced with having the State of Missouri withhold a portion of its sales tax remittances if the full contribution is not made during the fiscal year beginning July 1st. (The extra $5,200,000 does not cover the total amount of short payments over the last 4 years.)

The retirement benefits that are paid (currently about $15,000,000 per year) come from:

1) Police and Fire Employee Contributions (11% of payroll)

2) City of Springfield (Employer) Contributions (29% of payroll)

3) Investment Income (interest, dividends, capital gains)

4) Liquidation of pension fund assets (if required)

Last year, employee and employer contributions were about $10,000,000 and investment income was about $14,000,000. (The Net Assets of the Plan increased about $9,000,000 in the year ended 06/30/2007.) However, the investment results this year are very poor and may actually result in a net loss for the year and require that assets be liquidated to meet benefit payments.

The obvious fact is that the current budget cuts and extra contribution are only half a band-aid on a much more serious problem. The Police and Fire Pension Plan has a liability of about $280,000,000 for retirement benefits and assets of less than $140,000,000. The funded ratio of the plan as of 06/30/2008 will be less than 50%. The result of this shortage in the Net Assets is that Investment Income is being lost every year that should be available to pay benefits and reduce the required contributions of both the employer (City of Springfield – citizen/taxpayers) and the employees (policemen and firemen).

How much Investment Income is being lost by City Council’s lack of action? Lets do the math.

Under Funded Amount $ 130,000,000

Assumed Rate of Return 7.5%

Earnings Lost: Per Year $ 9,750,000

Per Day $ 26,700

Per Minute $18.55

Per Second $ .31

This $9,750,000 could be better used to hire the additional police and fire employees that were cut from the current budget, and reduce or sunset the Capital Improvement (¼%) or Parks Sales Tax (¼%). The effect of this would be to allow the citizens of Springfield to make the choice where their money will be spent.

Since next year’s budget was passed, the under funded status has cost the citizen/taxpayers of Springfield over $750,000 and this amount increases every day that this problem is allowed to exist.

Contact City Council and let them know that the citizen/taxpayers of Springfield demand leadership and a solution to this problem NOW! Don’t wait another second.

Fred B. Ellison

Missouri Liberty Coalition

1315 N. Broadway Avenue

Springfield, MO 65802

P.S. - Please note that this is not an anonymous character assassination, just the facts.