Editor Maggie Rotermund firstname.lastname@example.org
Posted by bobette luckett
This is a letter Jan Adams gave to the residents of Glenside Lane.
2:51 pm on Thursday, March 22, 2012
Jan, do you know which areas flooded? Why didn't all of us receive this letter?
I live in the flood zone and no candidate has promised us anything. If a U.S. Senator and Congressman could not make promises I am 100% sure a local candidate could not.
It is essential that residents of Ward 2 wake up to the dirty politics being played by some candidates. Jan Adams has previously indicated snow removal in University Park is more important than people. Every fact in her letter is a blatant lie.
If you want to see more bad press in the Post Dispatch about University City vote for Jan Adams. Maybe, we can make the top 10 list for local shenanigans. We cannot stay away from the polls.
8:43 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
Bobette Luckett, I assume, has spoken with everyone in the flood zone to ensure the 100% accuracy of her statement that "no candidate has promised US anything." If people want to accuse others of blatant lies, they need to present at least evidence of the true facts and/or explain how and why particular statements are factually false (as opposed to simply being statements of opinion with which one disagrees).
9:19 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
George... For someone so concerned about facts and evidence, you don't seem concerned that Jan's "facts" are not supported by any evidence. Furthermore, it's appalling that Jan would use the flooding issue to target some of the most emotionally and financially vulnerable people in our community with unsubstantiated claims and false information. Jan should spend more time speaking about the issues that define her candidacy and less time trying to define/attack/smear her opponent.
9:27 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
I suspect that this is simply Ms. Adams' attempt to smooth over the ripples caused by her assertion in a candidate forum that "snow removal" was the most pressing issue in the second ward. I hope that the residents this is targeted to understand her level of sincerity on this issue.
9:59 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
So what are the lies and what are the true facts? Why when I ask that simple question do I not get a straight answer? Instead, I just get an answer attacking me for not seeming concerned (why would I ask if I wasn't concerned?) and then attacking Ms. Adams for "unsubstantiated claims and false information," again without reference to what specifically is erroneous and why. Same old. And could someone please rotate the picture so I don't get a sore neck trying to read it?
10:17 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
George, you're not being attacked at all. Ms. Luckett posted a flyer that came was distributed in her neighborhood in which Jan Adams suggested that her opponent "may have been promising residents" that their homes would be bought out. She goes on to make three statements that she claims to be fact. None of it is substantiated nor supported by any evidence. Why is it that Ms. Adams' unsupported statements of "fact" are treated as truth while Ms. Luckett's statement requires evidence to support her assertion that Ms. Adam's "facts" are untrue?
George, I think your question regarding the lies and the true facts should be asked to Ms. Adams. Just as you think it's reasonable to ask Ms. Luckett to substantiate her claims, I think it's more important that Jan Adams substantiate hers. She is, after, all the person wanting to represent these constituents.
10:31 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
Jeff: The more you talk, the less you say. It's fine to seek substantiation from Ms. Adams, but I still haven't heard an answer to MY question--what specific statement(s) do you or Ms. Luckett know or suspect to be false and why? It's not unreasonable to ask this and would facilitate the process of getting substantiation on whatever it is you find objectionable.
10:34 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
Besides the fact that this flier violates state election laws because it doesn't tell who paid for it, Ms. Adams does present untruths and half-truths in her "facts."
For instance, her opponent did not file a lawsuit against the city "because she did not like a decision made by council." The lawsuit was filed because the city violated the Sunshine Laws on numerous occasions. As stated recently in the Post-Dispatch, U. City is one of the worst violators of the Sunshine Laws in the state of Missouri. And, the Attorney General just sent another letter reprimanding the city for such violations. Perhaps someone should post that.
Secondly, a resolution was passed to start a fund for future buyouts. Then Mayor Welsch and Lynn Ricci voted to change the resolution to allow the funds to be also be used for other purposes such as flood studies. I'll see if I can track down the resolutions and/or meeting minutes and post.
10:52 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
This is the original resolution that did NOT pass.
RESOLUTION ON THE CITY COUNCIL’S USE OF EQUIVALENT MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DISASTER FUND
WHEREAS, The City of University City recently received a grant of $461,000 from the Missouri Department of Economic Development to help cover the cost of a buyout of properties along Wilson Avenue; and
WHEREAS, this grant frees up funds already allocated to this buyout that had previously been placed in the City reserve fund; and
WHEREAS, there are 148 other homes in University City that the federal government has indicated would be eligible for a future buyout; and
WHEREAS, University City would have to match any future federal buyout funds in the amount of at least $10,000,000 to purchase those homes.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of University City is committed to starting to build a fund for the future purchase of flood-prone properties in University City;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council directs the City Manager to set aside $461,000 in a separate fund to be used as matching funds for future flood buyouts, these funds to be taken from the $1,000.000 the City Council authorized to be placed in the City reserve fund in June of 2010.
11:04 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
This is the resolution that DID pass - diverting buyout funds to other flood related expenses such as, "costs of remediation, costs of any necessary studies for solutions to the flooding problem, costs of clean up from any future flood disasters."
RESOLUTION ON THE CITY COUNCIL’S USE OF EQUIVALENT MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DISASTER FUND
WHEREAS, The City of University City recently received word it was awarded a grant of $461,000 from the Missouri Department of Economic Development to help cover the cost of a buyout of properties along Wilson Avenue; and
WHEREAS, this grant frees up $461,000 for the City’s reserve funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of University City remains exposed to costs associated with historic flooding in the city, including costs of remediation, costs of any necessary studies for solutions to the flooding problem, costs of clean up from any future flood disasters and funding for potential future buyouts of flood prone properties; and
WHEREAS, to that end the City finds it prudent and advisable to dedicate funds freed up by the award of a new grant, solely for the expenditures associated with flooding in the City of University City.
continued in next post...
11:05 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that upon receipt of the new grant, the City council of University city directs the new grant to be committed to and applied in total to the Wilson buyout; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council directs that a like sum, that being said $461, to then be taken from the $1,000.000 previously committed by the City Council in June of 2010 for the Wilson buyout, and set aside in a separate dedicated account to be used solely for costs and expenses associated with flooding in the City.
Adopted this 28th day of March, 2011
Signed, Shelley Welsch, Mayor
11:10 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
Thanks so much, Cindy, for getting factual! (I mean it.) Maybe I'm misreading it, but the resolution you quoted seems consistent with Ms. Adams' statement (Fact #1). If Ms. Carr supported the original resolution but opposed the amendment, that could be clarified. But note Ms. Adams said she supports the Council members who made the decision (not the decision per se) and Ms. Carr does not. Ms. Carr, with her emphasis on being "the independent candidate" and frequent disagreements with and criticism of many members of Council, can reasonably be said not to support those members. If Ms. Carr wants to run on this "outsider" platform and claim Ms. Adams is the "insider" who will just be more of the same, that's her privilege, but it then makes no sense to attack a flyer in which Ms. Adams emphasizes this fact--in effect running on her support for and relationships with others in City government as a strength, not a weakness. As to the lawsuit, the decision with Ms. Ms. Carr did not agree was the hiring of Mr. Walker and/or the manner it which it occurred, and this was a primary thrust of the lawsuit, though not the only one. It was not exclusively ABOUT the Sunshine Act, though it is true that that was the legal basis for challenging the Walker decision and other Act violations were also alleged. If there are "half-truths" here, that is standard campaign fodder, and it is for the opponent to expose the other half of the truth.
11:23 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
Ms. Carr has repeatedly stated that she was not adverse to the hiring of Mr. Walker. She has stated that she did not agree with the manner (the closed meetings, polling, and daisy chaining) in which Mr. Walker was hired. The lawsuit was exclusively about the Sunshine Act. The plaintiffs have always maintained that the only resolution to the suit would be to have the council admit the violations and revote to hire Mr. Walker in proper fashion (I can to this with authority as as my husband was a plaintiff).
And, just because Ms. Carr does not agree with a council member(s) on particular issues doesn't mean she doesn't support them or can't work with them. An independent candidate means they vote on behalf of their constituents and not someone who will rubber stamp administrative decisions or vote with their friends on the council.
11:39 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
Ms. Adams was very specific when she stated the role of the DC Lobbyist included securing "financial matches for future buyouts" (fact 2). This not part of the "Scope of Services" as defined in Section 2 of the city's Request for Proposal dated 12/2/11 and not how city officials have described the lobbyist's role. This statement by Ms. Adams is false.
"The Federal legislative lobbying consultant will help the City advocate for federal assistance for various community projects involving streets; sewer; recreation and parks facilities; economic development;revenue enhancement; and affordable housing through monitoring of federal grant programs. The consultant will also advocate on behalf of the City to pursue funding opportunities from foundations and corporations."
11:47 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
I think George makes a bit of an odd assertion that Ms. Adams "supports" certain council members but not necessarily the decision. The role of a council member is to serve the interests of his or her citizens, not support other members and their interests. I think this is precisely what Ms. Carr means when she states she's an independent candidate.
Ms. Carr explains what "independent candidate" means on her YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQCUkDPtg8Y
11:50 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
Cindy, I get it. I said the issue was the hiring and/or manner in which it occurred. You say it was just the manner. Even the manner involved decisions of the Council, which Ms. Carr opposed. You say, "the only resolution to the suit would be to have the council admit the violations and revote to hire Mr. Walker in proper fashion." People should know that this was the goal and decide on their own whether it was a goal meriting causing the city to incur the expenses of defending a lawsuit and whether they want to elect someone who is so "independent" she will join such a lawsuit--even if the likely outcome would have been a re-vote confirming the hiring. Such a lawsuit putting principle over result is one I personally would never recommend or join, but I understand others disagree. It certainly seems a very fair fact to consider in deciding for whom to vote.
12:06 pm on Friday, March 23, 2012
Thanks, Jeff. Now finally I'm getting specifics as to alleged falsity. I doubt a contract with a consultant would preclude their performance of services in connection with funding a future buyout, and perhaps Ms. Adams has some other information on that, but you raise a fair question by quoting the RFP. People can view Ms. Carr's activities and get a pretty good idea of what "independent" means to her. Many like it; I find it reflexively oppositional and confrontational, much like the Republicans in DC. I don't expect someone who supports the Mayor and Mr. Walker in the face of frequent attacks to support them unquestionably or become a rubber stamp. To the contrary, I believe Jan Adams has the right kind of "independence," one that will view each issue on its merits and then seek consensus so we avoid excessive divisiveness in Council voting. Consensus after discussion and independent input is not the same thing as rubber-stamping; though unanimous votes may create the appearance of rubber-stamping, they may also merely reflect a Council that works well together in the best interests of the City and citizens of their respective Wards.
3:44 pm on Friday, March 23, 2012
Principle over results? I choose principle over result, rather than result over principle. I will stand for the principle that citizens have the right to access the decision making process of government officials. This is something some people are willing to stand for, to put their neck on the line for and to stand up to public ridicule for. When people stand up for the rights promised by law they are helping protect those who are afraid to, so that when someone else seeks information they won't be denied. George you have no personal knowledge of what the lawsuit was about. You were not involved in it in any way. I was involved. I know the facts. I can say, this your statements are untrue. The city incurred $5,000.00 in attorney's fees. That is all. The Plaintiff's much more. One council member stated that the City would spend us into the ground. The City did just that. I do not think the City, the Mayor and those who support their obstructionist tactics should claim the lawsuit was too expensive when the tactics they employed raised the fees involved. More importantly, why is my right to access public records trumped by supporters of the Mayor who argue I am just part of a tiny minority and irrelevant? One Council member has called me that. The Mayor agrees as she has refused to reprimand that council member for his incivility. So, I'll stick my neck out and stand for principle so that maybe our City officials will follow the law in the future.
4:15 pm on Friday, March 23, 2012
Keep fighting the good fight, Steve....My personal knowledge is based solely on reading the petition in the lawsuit, which is a pretty good source for determining what the lawsuit was about (but not for all the motives underlying it). Whatever the cost to the City, it was more than zero. Like I said, obviously some people find the principle worth the fight. Others think it's unseemly for someone to run for City office after having just sued the City, no matter the cost to the City. Such people, myself included, might conclude the resort to litigation is symptomatic of someone who takes an overly adversarial approach to politics and as a result may not make a positive contribution to the Council, but will instead bring an adversarial, confrontational approach to the position. That's one of the legitimate issues in this election. It's just my opinion, and I hope that if she's elected she proves me wrong.
4:46 pm on Saturday, March 24, 2012
I will fight the good fight; I only ask that you stop suggesting that you have firsthand knowledge of why the lawsuit was filed. I have explained it to you more than once and you continue to say something that is false. As I said, I was there. I know firsthand what motive was involved. Your claims that this was about more that open access to government as promised by law is just false. Please stop.
When Ms. Ricci was unable to stop the cell phone class action settlement, by legitimate means on the board, her good friend and "hand-picked" replacement candidate, stepped up and used the court system to try and derail the settlement. Seems to me Jan Adams was involved in litigation that was adversarial and a backdoor attempt to try and get done what Ms. Ricci could not.
5:24 pm on Saturday, March 24, 2012
Anyone still reading, here it is. The lawsuit had nothing to do with the hiring of Lehman Walker. Nothing. It was just about "open access to government as promised by law." Really. Forget anything I said to the contrary. It's true I know nothing about why that lawsuit was filed. I just know how it looked to me and many others. Of course none of us are mind readers. But the two lawsuits are apples and oranges. One was directly against (adversarial to) the City, and could have and did result in costs to the City (there could have been fines as well as fees). The other, as I understand it, was a challenge to attorney fees charged to the City. Thus it could have resulted in savings, not costs, to the City, and was adversarial to the interests of the attorney, and potentially aligned with those of the City. I don't know the true motivations; that's just how it appears.
8:29 am on Monday, March 26, 2012
Wrong again George Ms. Adams effort to derail the setltement cost the City at least $8000.00 for an independant review on the "conflict of interest" she raised.
9:49 am on Monday, March 26, 2012
So the fee protest could have saved money had it succeeded, but didn't, and ended up costing money instead. The lawsuit, on the other hand, was guaranteed to cost money, the only question being how much. Defense costs were a given; fines and payment of plaintiffs' fees a variable. Wrong?
11:42 am on Monday, March 26, 2012
Like the old MASTERCARD commercial
Sunshine lawsuit $5,000.00
Jan Adams lawsuit $8,000.00
Damage caused by unethical conduct, back room deals, rigged hiring, and political patronage- immeasurable.
And if Ms. Adams was successful, the entire settlement could have been derailed. This could have resulted in a trial. If U-City loses, all the past due taxes and future taxes are gone.
4:40 pm on Friday, March 23, 2012
Others may conclude that the litigation was the last resort after months of unresponsiveness on the part of the city and symptomatic of a systemic disregard for the rights of citizens and the rule of law by a few in charge who more concerned with results than the guiding principles of the law.
4:53 pm on Friday, March 23, 2012
Correct, Jeff. That is one possible interpretation. Perhaps the Council should have voted to offer to settle the lawsuit on the matter of principle -- agreeing to re-vote, with all the i's dotted and t's crossed. Then principle would have been satisfied and Mr. Walker would have been legitimated. The City would then have shown proper regard for the rights of citizens and the rule of law. And I'm sure those who brought the lawsuit would have been happy as clams (not).
2:06 pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
George - you seems to be the lone person who is defending the likes of Jan and Ricci. You shroud your questions like you are only interested in the 'truth' but it is obvious you have a very partisan view of all things related. We see it here, we see it on Facebook, it is truly sad that you are sticking behind these crazy (Ricci) and lying (Adams) people. Do us all a favor and wake up. Your ignorance is frightening.
3:47 pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
"Bob Jones": Call me on my cell at 314-324-6560 if you wish to set me straight. True dialogue might be more persuasive than these endless written comments. I'll be waiting for your call. Why is my "ignorance frightening? What are you afraid of? And aren't the other comments here equally "partisan"? I may be the most consistent voice opposing some of the negative voices here, but I have not been the only one. Further, although I won't list names, I can assure you that many people (other than Ricci and Adams) have agreed off the record with my comments, but they are so much in agreement, and feel my positions are so obviously sensible, that they see no need to join in. There should be no illusions about this comments section or the Facebook page being representative of a cross section of University City voters. it's not. Rather, it's where a few highly partisan people gather to hurl charges and counter-charges.
7:26 pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
"Charles F": The invitation to call me at 314-324-6560 is open to you as well. If my "ignorance" is so frightening (for some unspecified reason) maybe you'd care to enlighten me as to the truth, instead of just calling people "liars." BTW, if you call someone a "liar" and they were in fact truthful, you have made a false and defamatory statement that might be legally actionable. So you might do well to be specific and be careful. As to when I'll stop, I'll stop when someone convinces me I'm wrong. And I'll continue as long as I see statements being made here that do not appear to include adequate factual support--and as long as I know that plenty of people agree with me.
7:46 pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
And we are now threatening law suits against commentors on this website. Very sad.....In comparison, If President Obama looked at the comments about him on Facebook and CNN, and Fox News....the defamation lawsuits would be in the thousands...but maybe that's what the lawyers want.
8:30 pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
Please Sebastian, that was not a threat, but a warning and an effort to tone down the unsubstantiated rhetoric and name calling here. I have absolutely no desire to sue anyone, but I think people should be aware of the boundary between what is lawful First Amendment speech and what is instead actionable defamation. Calling me ignorant isn't what I was getting at, but calling others "liars." One should have a good factual basis for making such an accusation. That's all I was trying to say.
7:58 pm on Sunday, March 25, 2012
George, you're interested in truth only when it supports your unwavering, unchanging position. Ms. Adams' made multiple claims, or "facts" without providing any factual support on matters that were not subjective. You dismissed them "campaign fodder". You do not have the moral authority to pontificate your seemingly "pragmatic thought" when you only insist upon accountability only from those who challenge your position.
If you'd like to read "statements being made here that do not appear to include adequate factual support", read Jan's flyer and demand some accountability from her. Until then, lets just be honest about this and admit that you're only interested in the truth that supports your conclusion.
8:44 am on Monday, March 26, 2012
You notice George is not refuting the comment that Ricci is crazy. I don't think any amount of talk can dissuade anyone from that opinion.
10:01 am on Monday, March 26, 2012
I don't think that if anyone is seriously calling Ms. Ricci crazy, as in mentally ill, that is in any way appropriate, absent evidence of a professional diagnosis. Otherwise, it's just name-calling, like calling me "ignorant." Even for name-calling, it's a term we should try to avoid because it contributes to continued stigmatization of mental illness, which is a serious public health problem that touches virtually every family at one time or another in some way. (There, didn't think I'd do it, huh?)
12:36 pm on Monday, March 26, 2012
George, this is not name calling. In your words, this is fact.
You forget about the mass emails Ricci use to send to her ward ranting and raving about the prior administration. Feier, Crow, Joe Adams, etc. Her thoughts and argument was incoherent at best and downright mean spirited and spiteful. Oh and yes she did a lot of name calling. Anyone who had a difference of opinion from her got her full arsenal of outrage and hatred. I have a hard time believing that anyone who received those emails could honestly say she had full control of herself.
You once again have proven my point that you will blindly defend to no end your idols Ricci, Jan, Shelley, Walker, etc. You make a great addition to their team (and that is not a compliment).
2:06 pm on Monday, March 26, 2012
"Bob Jones": I never received "mass emails" from Ricci. I don't idolize anyone, nor am I on their "team." Ricci seems to have been at the center of some controversies. My impression was the controversy was probably often overblown but she may not have been blameless. Were she running again, I wouldn't necessarily vote for her. Ms. Adams isn't perfect; I just think her qualifications are superior (I do like having lawyers on Council, as it is a legislative body). I have concerns about electing someone (Ms. Carr) who has been so oppositional; constructive criticism is good, but personally I see her as going well beyond that. I worry about more extremism and obstructionism and ongoing animosity should she be elected. I think she means well and could do a decent job; it's just relative merits. As to Welsch and Walker, I think Walker's hiring was not handled well (but not unethical), and on some matters they have not been sufficiently open with the public. The golf course lights issue, for one, remains a mystery to me. I don't care for the way Mr. Walker went about resigning from the ICMA. I don't care for how the Mayor dismissed the ICMA's sanction, and I urged Council on the record to do more and not leave it with that brief statement from the Mayor. I was the only person I'm aware of to suggest that the Council discipline Mr. Walker short of termination. So spare me the crap about blindly defending people. And I'm still waiting for your call so you can cure my ignorance.
8:12 pm on Monday, March 26, 2012
I agree that constructive criticism is good, but that's exactly what I've seen coming from Ms. Carr, not obstructionism and extremism. ( I can't say I've heard a lot of it from Jan Adams when I've heard her speak.) As a citizen, Ms. Carr really has no power to be obstructionist, though our council members and manager actually do. I've seen her stand up for open government, for the Sunshine Law, for the city's charter, and for people whose concerns have been ignored, people who have been marginalized by our city government. The driving range is a great case in point. Ms. Carr brought attention to that issue through her website, letting people know what was going on with the money our city and others spent on that project. This is not obstructionism or extremism. It's an effective use of free speech. Ms. Carr's willingness to stand up to city council when she feels they're making wrong decisions is why I and others admire her, and why we feel she will do more than a "decent job."
Would you like to receive email updates about this announcement?
Advertise on Patch and reach potential customers in your backyard and beyond. Click here for more information.
Learn more »
If you want to help local causes, or your cause needs local help, your next click should be right here.
Learn more »
Share with your social networks:
University City news, events, and deals sent to you daily and breaking news as it happens.
See more options
You’re now signed up!
Enter your tip here and it will be sent straight to
Editor Maggie Rotermund and Associate Regional Editor Ryan Martin,
University City Patch's (incredibly grateful)