Well now... it appears that the nay-sayers are now a majority voting block. Call your Council Member and let them know YOUR preferences. Most folks seem to like he new logo. Let's not waste money going backwards.

I like the new logo very much and think it was a shame that it has been rejected. School colors have a very slight relevance to the identity of the whole city.

So the mayor thinks that there's no need to consult the council unless the council ASKS to be consulted? Then why do we even HAVE a council? Things like this keep happening and it's getting old. I'm getting sorry I voted for her. And now, to top it off, because of all the sign and stationery changes, we'll probably be set upon by the giant pompous ego of Elliot Davis of Channel 2 or Chris Nagus of Channel 4!

At what point is this city going to get its act together? Fail after fail after fail. Someone, anyone NEEDS to be in charge. Someone NEEDS to set the boundaries of what the city council should, and should not be involved.
And the pattern goes on:
Waste, waste, waste! Fail fail fail. Again and again and again.

School colors have a "slight" relevance? Please. They have a real relevance to those of us who use the public schools and who - like me - support our schools as an integral part of our community and work for the district. I know of many citizens who don't use the public schools who don't understand the color change for the sake of color change. If you don't think it matters, ask my students. As soon as one of the city limit sign changes happened in their neighborhoods (they seemed to change the signs in northern UCity first,) my students complained that it looked silly. Their first question: why are the colors different? and then, what was wrong with the old signs? These are high school students. Even they knew better.

Further, the banners on the loop are downright foolish-looking. The name of the city is hardly readable and the banners look as though someone didn't know how to fit the logo on a long narrow banner.

And I still don't have a good answer as to why we didn't use a local PR firm. I can name 3 UCity companies or even individuals off the top of my head who have more experience than the current firm. Plus the focus groups were hand-picked and small. Not really representative of a city with a population of 34,000. It was a mess and a waste of money to begin with - reminiscent of the calendar fiasco more than a year ago - and I'm glad we're starting to clean it up.

$39,000 to use the same logo and change the colors with the click of a button on the computer, the public need to have a chance to see it and give feedback to our council member be for we make new signs, stationary etc.

The Loop Special Business District was not brought into the process either... we were shocked to learn that a new logo was being unveiled when our organization received zero notification of the project and were not offered an opportunity to provide any input on the re-branding project. If the 145+ businesses in The Loop were not consulted on this project, or even our own City Council, then just who was consulted?

It is backwards to say that if the City Council had a question, then they should have asked. I have an idea... how about if the city has a question, THEY should be the ones doing the asking! I think that is great that University City is working on improving their marketing and branding, but we need to include the entire community in these discussions.

Just so I am clear: We spent just shy of $40,000 to add a tag line and change gold to trendy blue/green. We then spent $10,000 to start changing signs. Then we realized we should be voting on this? Did I get the order right? The best reason for keeping the new logo is we already spent the money? Really? That is a reason to do something bone headed, we already have? Is anyone minding the store????

Could the city council, city manager, and mayor get their collective heads out of their other body locations and start smart managing? Shoot, I would settle for less mismanaging.

Coordination with the school district. That only started in the late '70's-early '80's when the city adopted the lion logo and the school district did soon after.

BTW - I know this is not a reason to do, or not to do something but the school logo and the city logo in: Clayton, Ladue, Kirkwood, Webster do not match. U-City actually has more continuity than any of the other cites / school. Maybe the school district should follow suit, again. Lord know the schools could use a LOT of rebranding!

While I was not personally a fan of the colors or tagline of the new logo, I think most of these comments are missing the larger point. That is, entity branding, whether it be for a public or private entity, is much more about the actions and behaviors of that entity and its representatives than it is about colors and taglines of logos. By rescinding the new logo and thereby throwing away nearly $50,000, we add to the negative image of the community and the competence of its leaders at all levels. This is where the harm is really done. This kind of behavior makes us seem like fools and it has to stop now. The logo itself is unimportant, but continuing this kind of behavior speaks volumes to the world at large that our leaders, particularly all of our elected leaders, need to get their collective acts together. Even if the new logo had been pink with purple polka dots, the effect on U.City's brand would have been minor in comparison to the action taken by the Council. This is not about whether an individual Council member liked or disliked the logo. It's about the image we project by the actions we take. Time for all of you to take a Marketing 101 class!!

The article leaves out some important information. 1) The City Manager failed to bring this to the Council for approval. He "approved" the logo by himself. Mr. Walker did not have authority to do so. While the Mayor supported the action, she does not have authority to approve the logo either. 2) The re-branding by Avant was a 3 stage process that will not be completed because, as stated at the meeting last night, the PR budget for Avant will be eliminated. Therefore the "re-branding" the Mayor and Mr. Walker promised us will not happen. It seems silly to keep the "re-branded" logo when the entire re-branding plan will not be implemented. Again this is the failing of Mr. Walker who spent the majority of the PR budget ($60,000.00+) on issues other than re-branding. 3) Ms. Carr and Mr. Crowe only asked that the logo be sent to the Arts and Letters Commission for comment. Neither asked for a vote on the logo at the meeting and neither indicated, prior to the vote, that they would reject it. Mr. Kraft made a motion to accept the logo. Had Mr. Kraft not moved to for an immediate vote, discussion on the matter could have continued, Arts and Letters could have weighed in and greater citizen input, other than 157 talked to by Avant, could have given their opinions. Apparently, the Council was given little to no information from Avant about re-branding. Thus, with limited information and the call for an immediate vote, the measure failed.

While I was not at the meeting to verify the timeline presented by Steve, the Council certainly had as an option to overrule Mr. Kraft's motion and instead move to table further discussion until it had been reviewed by the Arts and Letters Commission. For that matter, the Council still has that option and I would strongly encourage them to do so before making any irreversible moves. As I said above, the action the Council did take casts an unfavorable light on U.City and adds to our already tarnished image over the last decade. Whether we keep Avant is beside the point. The Council members and the City officials themselves need to view all of their actions in light of the City's brand. In this case, it is undeniably clear that these actions only lend credence to the perception that we are bickering fools that are more interested in petty politics than improving the City. This is not about who did what or when it was done - this has to be about what is done and how that reflects on the image of our City.

Most of the comments here are about the politics of the issue. Since we were asked about our OPINION of the new or old logo, I will state that I am not opposed to the wording "Neighborhood to the World" or the colors. But since so many people seem to object to it, why not use a LOCAL firm to redesign the logo putting "University City" boldly at the top and "Neighborhood to the World" at the bottom, using the gold and black colors?

OK - I realize I'm new to this discussion. But as a practically lifelong resident, and alumna of the school district, I (and I'm willing to bet a fair number of my UCHS classmates) have a strong connection to the logo & color scheme of the former symbol.As the UCHS school song says "All hail to the old gold and black!" In a world where so many things change so rapidly, it's nice when you can recognize that steadfast representation of where you live..........it says "I'm home". Let's not do away with all of our traditions in life!!

"Internal Communications regarding Patch Issues " I.E. Damage Control for the ICMA Ethics issue. Mr. Walker strikes again!

"Internal Communications regarding Patch Issues." Hmm, let's see. Patch has these open comment sections. People comment, often criticizing the administration. The administration seeks third-party expert PR advice on assessing and responding to the comments. Perhaps sometimes the result is that the administration is told that there are valid points and suggestions being made here, not just for cover-up and whitewash response purposes, but for purposes of taking some comments to heart and adjusting policies and practices accordingly. Is that not what commentators here would hope for? Or would you prefer these comments vanish into cyberspace and never come to the administration's attention?

Jan- Are you going to get over the fact that you lost to Paulette in the April Election? It's enough that you ran a smear campaign and still lost, but it's only a couple of months in and you are full throttle, showing up at council meetings to grill Paulette directly, posting on the Patch about Paulette directly. Maybe a volunteer position at the Green Center until the next election to keep busy?

$100,000 seemed alot of money for "PR". Obviously, we haven't invested enough in PR.

Too funny. In the last 24 hours I've read two rants against Paulette Carr, both from vocal Shelley supporters/Paulette opponents. One criticised her for being a "budget-cutter" and one (Jan Adams' above) calls her out for reckless spending. Perhaps these folks should sit down together and get their stories straight. Ms. Carr likes to play by the rules, and she requires that others do as well - that doesn't seem to be going over well in some circles. As to the topic at hand, I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Kraft pushed through this vote without taking the matter before the Arts and Letters Council as Carr and Crow had requested, but he did and now we need to move forward and do it right this time.

Whether or not we like the new logo the questions we should be asking are what it is expected to do for U City and how will we know if this investment has been worthwhile. Personally, I am less interested in a debate about whether we like blue or green or black or gold and more interested about the perceptions of U City that we'd like to change. The truth is that branding rarely changes perceptions - it's the decisions and actions of the organization that determine what the perceptions are. Rebranding is useful if our materials seem disjointed or look out of date, and those are issues that are barriers to people hearing our message. But it's a tactic not a strategy, and that's where I think our efforts should be focused. One of the strategies is to consistently be open and transparent within the City to reduce public spats. I hope the new majority on the Council will be focused on encouraging transparency and citizen involvement and on moving forward to address opportunities and challenges so that we leave U City a better place than we found it.

Seems like this is all a result of the City Manager ramming "his" vision through without finding out what the key stakeholders have to say. Not consulting with your business community? City council? Sounds like Mr. Walker's ego is pretty large.

cam- the point being was that Jan is obviously disgruntled in losing to Ms. Carr in the recent council election and is making a point of taking only Ms. Carr to task. Jan has been very quiet when it comes to the dishonesty of the city manager, but again with the campaign that she ran and the dishonesty exposed through her debates, none of this should be surprising to anyone.

I am not sure we have ever received a straight answer on that. Based on the cronyism evident at City Hall, she probably was.

I like the new logo. But I really cannot stand all the anger that exists in U. City, exhibited in many of the posts above. We cannot move forward as a community in this climate.

I am tired of people refusing to identify themselves with their entire names. Some of you probably have legitimate points but you kill them with your refusal to stand behind them with your given names. This publication as well as most publications require this. I don't know why so many of you won't play by the rules, without the editor havng to put you in the corner after all this is not elementary school. We all want things better with less confusion, so let's all be adults!

Holston- Does this publication require a profile picture as well? Your right though, I guess my points and or questions/ concerns are not valid because I choose not to use my full name. Yours are extra valid because you use not only your full name with suffix, but also a profile pict.

Again, please, let's have peace in our "neighborhood to the world."

Our Cities logo should be a Rubic's Cube...in black and old gold, please. Go Indians!!!

The problem with boards and councils is that it's hard to get anything done! Add politics into the mix and it's nearly impossible. I would urge all on the city council to stop arguing over what was done or not done in the past, what rule was followed or not followed, and work together to move forward. What the logo is for our city is hardly important, given the larger issues our city faces. Does it matter that rules, precedents, etc. were not followed to the letter? A logo is a symbol of us. It is a thing that when a person sees it, they recognize that it represents us. The advantage of a NEW logo is that it gets a person to look again, to reconsider, to draw attention to the thing the logo represents, namely U. City. A NEW logo draws attention to U. City. That is a part of public relations.

Now the members of city council who have voted down the logo are removing this valuable attention-getting device. Was this important to do? Do they have the best interests of U. City in mind, or are egos involved, or is rule-following more important than drawing renewed attention to our community? Is it better to be seen as a people who never "break a rule" (or some might say," have a new thought?"), or is it better to be seen as a community that can work together despite our differences? Our community is not defined by its logo, but by the behavior of its citizens and representatives. Personally, I would like to see the council get some real work done to help build U. City.

The nextSTL blog weighs in on our new/old logo:
http://nextstl.com/stl-county/what-s-in-a-city-brand-university-city-retreats-from-new-logo

I do think it is important what rules are followed. We are governed by a city charter and a multitude of ordinances. As a matter of good governance, no one should be allowed to pick and choose which rules they want to follow. Otherwise, why does the charter even exist? Why have a city council?

If we were discussing the city budget rather than a logo, would the conversation be different - probably so when discussing large sums of money. But why does disregarding the process for the city's branding considered okay, but would not be considered ethical if it were the budget? We need to fix the broken processes at city hall - why not start now?

Those that weren't at the council meeting to hear the discussion regarding the branding process can download a recording at http://ucitycitizen.org/. There were council persons that wanted to discuss the process (Carr and Crowe for example) and "move the council forward in a productive way." However, there were council members that had no interest in such a discussion (Welsch and Kraft). It was Kraft who insisted on the up or down vote on the logo. So, if we are going to talk about those that are "wasteful, petty, and foolish," you may want to listen to the audio of the meeting.

'm sorry Kathy, but I don't know how anyone can begin to claim that this is a "new" logo. It is the same exact logo we've had since the 70s, with the exception of new trendy colors and the addition of a confusing new slogan that takes predominance over the name of our city. Even the original font was maintained! You say "the newness makes it valuable" - but it Isn't new at all. The emperor has no clothes!

Correction: It now appears that the audio file I listened to this morning WAS the one from the June 11 meeting after all. This makes me wonder why Cindy directed my attention to the audio, since it contradicts her point...

As I mentioned in the above post, quoting myself:
I did listen to the latest meeting where the audio is available, and found more evidence in it that Ms Carr and Mr Crow persist in using their valuable time to address their issues about things that either have already been decided upon, or are inconsequential, such as how one is addressed during meetings. How do resolutions of either of these issues move our city forward? How are they not wasteful of the council's time?

No George, you've missed my broader comment in response to Kathy's broader comment that Mr. Crow and Ms. Carr wanted to have a dialogue about the logo and the process because its what citizens deserve, and that they, as well as all council members have an obligation to ensure that processes are followed so that the logo of University City is consistent with the official logo as passed by the council.

To your other point, I do enjoy your political conspiracy theories; they are Nixon-esque. I think the answer is likely far more benign than you may think. When embarking on a process to rebrand any organization for the first time in 35 years, the most elementary of questions to ask is: "how did they do it before?". It's rather incredible that no one seemed to ask that question, perhaps it would have been asked if the council & public were afforded greater involvement during the process.

How the knowledge came about is not a conspiracy or a secret. If you listen to the recording of the meeting, I think you'll hear that Ms. Carr stated that she researched how the old logo came to be the official logo. She spoke with city manager and council members from that time. I think you'll also find that she agrees with your statement that "the same should be true of any change" to the official logo. Perhaps you should see where else you might agree?

No Jeff you didn't address: "Ms Carr and Mr Crow persist in using their valuable time to address their issues about things that either have already been decided upon, or are inconsequential, such as how one is addressed during meetings. How do resolutions of either of these issues move our city forward? How are they not wasteful of the council's time?" But thanks for answering my questions about the information. You can make fun of it as Nixonian conspiracy thinking, but you confirm involvement of people who are no longer in power but can't seem to keep their hands off, as well as time spent digging up old history (which may or may not be valuable). If Ms. Carr did it all on her own time, fine, but I've heard otherwise.

Never ending....One has to know a lot of history to put all this in the proper context. Kathy's comment struck me as a very apt personal take on how things appeared to her as someone who has not been regularly and deeply awash in the City's political muck and mire. I don't hear anyone but you saying "some deserve civility and others do not."

Oh George...I'm reminded of a comment you once made towards me on here. It was something along the lines of: "the more you talk the less you say." Addressing and correcting past errors is moving forward and it's made more difficult when you use this platform to malign the intentions of others. It's one thing to criticize the actions of an official, it's quite another to malign their intentions. George, I know you "loathe" Ms. Carr, but if you have a question about her research, perhaps you should give her a call.

Let's move forward. Ms. Carr (or anyone else on Council) could start with a motion to send the logo project to Arts or whatever else they thinks might be appropriate in order to prevent it from being a completely wasted effort. While there have been some loudly squeaking wheels both about procedure and about the product itself (logo and tag line), the procedure is reparable (by taking such steps) and such procedure might yield a reasonable determination whether the product is a complete and total reject and failure, one that should be approved as is, or one that should be tweaked. Not moving to take such steps would imply less concern for managing spending appropriately (not wasting money already spent), less concern for getting a good result, and more concern for scoring political points. I'd be happy to be wrong on this. "Loathe" is a bit strong, but so far my pre-election concerns seem to be validated.

Has anyone else noticed that the one thing that is consistent in all these "issues" that keep popping up is our City Manager? I thought City Managers were supposed to stay below the radar, carry out the will of the elected body and not make policy. Seems like our City Manager likes to make policy decisions and those keep getting the headlines.

Consider this: The "right" way to do anything may or may not be the way it was done before. History teaches us many important things, but historical lessons must be learned in the context of the times. One needs to keep in mind that that was then, and this is now. The circumstances may have changed since the last time something was approved by our political leaders. Just because something was done a particular way in the 1970's does not mean that it must be done exactly the same way in the 2010's, 40 years later. We can, and I would urge the council to, think more creatively about how we can move forward with the goals of our city, and not be mired in the processes that, while they may have served the city in the past, may not be the best way as we move into the future. Rule makers of the past were not necessarily more wise than the council members today, and I urge us all to consider that there can be more than one "right" way to do a thing, and that the "right" ways of the past may not lead us to the "right" way going forward. We don't necessarily have to follow the leadership of previous councils. We can be leaders, and think for ourselves. Whichever side of a given battle you are on, I would urge you to consider thinking about what is the best way today, given what we have learned from the ways of the past, and know of the present, to make decisions, and make changes, for the betterment of the community.

One more thought about "right":
It is only natural that in any given argument, one strives to prove oneself right. But as a council member, one should fight against that natural impulse, and put ego aside. You do not serve your community if you are only right. Being right is neither enough, nor desirable, if proving your rightness does not help our community grow. I see that as your most important task as council members, and yet there seems to be a lot of distraction from this goal in the form of proving oneself right, and others wrong. We would all be better off if the council would focus on the important tasks at hand, and WORK TOGETHER to grow our community.