"That Sucks."

 

Did you ever feel the hairs on the back of your neck bristle while walking along a dark road in the night, or get the feeling that you were being watched, or maybe a sense that you were being followed? Doing what I do — exposing politicians who don't always color insides the lines — has from time-to-time put me in a somewhat less than desirable position, and I'm fine with that. You can't rack up the number of political enemies I have made without expecting some retaliation, especially from those I've been critical of. I started this post with this because I want to let those who are following me know that I know who you are, where you work, and who ordered it. To those who pursue me I say; follow away, but don't get so comfortable that you don't look over your own shoulder occasionally, you too have an observer. When the time is right names will be posted here.
 

Last week's meeting of the board of aldermen of November 20, 2013 (click here), had it's moments. I will be pointing out a few of the highlights, but first an observation: It's just a little more than four months to the election and perhaps technology is responsible, but the usual array of hopeful candidates are no where to be seen. Leading up to every election in recent memory there has always been several would-be-aldermen seen at every aldermen meetings. Almost every wanna-be started showing up at the meetings about six-months prior to an election, to either mouth off, have a photo-op, or just take notes, but they aren't here yet. From what I've heard, Mr. Joe Howard may be running against Sonya Shryock for the Ward 2 seat and that may be why he stood up to offer a rant against President of the Board, Rick Stokes. If you'd like to watch it, it takes place during the "Open Forum" section of the agenda. I've also been informed that another lady may be entering the Ward 2 race, but as yet there's nothing concrete. In Ward 1, rumor has it that Jay Webber may be coming out of mothballs after his 2012 loss to Forrest Gossett. If everything is as before, Mayor Nickolas Guccione will play a big hand in helping Webber once again, beware of the King Nickolas brand of mud-slinging to be flying around again this year.

* * * * *

Retiring Purchasing Director, Jerry Hillin, gave his farewell address to the aldermen recapping all that has been accomplished and his hopes for the future. Hillin has been a very busy man during his time here, he wrote the new City purchasing policy and along the way, made a few enemies in City Hall. Always outspoken, Hillin once again took a shot across the bow of the elected officials ship. He said he would pay for a plaque to be placed in the entrance of city hall which would read: "BEFORE YOU ENTER, LEAVE YOUR POLITICS AT THE DOOR." Shortly after that impromptu message, Mayor Nickolas told him to move on. The City owes a lot to Jerry Hillin for all he's accomplished for the future of good government in Wentzville. I for one will miss him and wish him well in his retirement.

* * * * *

I ask all of my readers to go to the city video of this meeting at 3:38:30, and just watch the discussion of the signage for "Double Fine Zones." The presentation was given by Acting City Administrator, Doug Lee, and Public Works Director, Susan Mueller, who showed examples of the proposed "Double Fine Zone" signs. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about the discussion, it's something you need to see, to believe. Alderman Sonya Shryock dominated the discussion with what appeared to be like someone picking out drapes. She made some strange statements about elderly drivers and how she thinks the signs should be much larger. In her opinion, what is good enough for neighboring cities is not good enough for Wentzville's (seemingly blind) elderly drivers.

* * * * * 

The "Aldermen Reports" were interesting, and there was a first. For the first time, perhaps ever, Alderman Cheryl Kross didn't prattle through a mountain of questions and minutia. When asked for her report she simply said, "I have no report." I need to think about that for a while.

There seems to be a mystery revolving around the report given by President of the Board Rick Stokes. From what I saw, Mayor Nickolas has singled out Stokes by having the directors send an email to Guccione anytime Stokes contacts them by phone or email, regardless of of the subject. It's funny that Guccione puffs up his chest and begins barking with hostility anytime Stokes or Gossett ask him a question. He really hates those guys, which means they must be doing the right thing, and that makes them okey-dokey with me.

Stokes asked him straight up if he was the only alderman that the directors report to Guccione about anytime he contacts them. Guccione got his hackles up, and for the second time in as many meetings he cited 125.100 Section C, stating, "It is a violation of City ordinance to undermine the duties of the Mayor." Unfortunately, Guccione doesn't seem to understand that his argument is not germane to that ordinance. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Mayor Nickolas must have forgotten that unlawful use of the City logo is a real crime. The Mayor is stirring the political pot with no basis of fact, he's after Stokes to get anything he can to use against him in the coming election, whether it's fact, or not.

* * * * *

 

The next item to look at is the "Mayor's Report, Ethics Policy Discussion." This item has been hotly contested for the last few weeks and it has become clear what's going on. Shryock has been asking to discuss this at several prior meetings and it has to do with accepting charitable donations by elected officials, here is where the story gets messy.

Shryock really doesn't have a dog in the ethics fight other than to be Guccione's front man. Guccione has recruited Shryock to do his bidding and she thinks it's in exchange for his support in the coming election. What she knows is; because of her poor record she has absolutely no chance of being re-elected on her own. So she figures if she nuzzles up to Guccione, he would support her campaign, I hope she tells me how that strategy worked out for her. She's begun following him around town like a puppy, but what she doesn't know is that Guccione doesn't care if she gets re-elected or not, he can use her now and for the next four months. He has her replacement waiting in the wings and he will use Shryock until that time, afterall, he still has Hays and Kross in his pocket, it's pretty pathetic. Her job performance rating is the lowest on the board and in her effort to salvage her seat, she turned from her opposition of Guccione—caving in to his politics, for that reason alone she really doesn't deserve a second term. Kross did that very thing about 10 months ago when she turned her back on the board to flip on her vote for Guccione's appointment of the unpopular choice of Michael Hays. I wonder today if, Aldermen Chris Gard and Gossett regret their vote to approve the appointment?

Back to the discussion: The ethics policy was revised after the incident involving Mayor Paul Lambi who confessed to the Missouri Ethics Commission his guilt in taking charitable donations for his benefit. Guccione wants to have this section repealed so that he can solicit donations for charitable organizations.

During the discussion, Alderman Forrest Gossett tried to explain why the policy excluded allowing elected officials to accept charitable donations without pointing fingers at Lambi. Guccione got huffy again and in his paranoid way barked; "This is pretty insulting Sir. You talk about a Mayor in the past using charitable donations for their own benefit, Sir, but I never saw that, show me that in writing, Sir!" Guccione has either got a real short memory, or he was asleep in the closed sessions of that time, because the report clearly states that very thing. At one point during the battle with Gossett, Guccione said. "That sucks!" I've never heard a mayor use that term from the dais before, then again, Guccione does a lot of things I've never seen a mayor do or say before, and he doesn't do a lot of things a mayor should do and say.

Guccione used Shryock to bring the ethics policy back to the board, he will do anything to get it changed. I wish Shryock luck with her April election, she's gonna need it. When she's sitting at home after losing the election, I wonder if she'll remember how much she hated Guccione when she was a contributing member of the board during her first year in office? Please watch this "Mayor's Report," I think you'll find it both informative, and entertaining.

 

Was Lambi Really Wrong?

 

I implore all of my readers to watch the video of the Board of Aldermen meeting of November 6, 2013, particularly the work session portion entitled "(ID # 4872) Budget Review" (click here). Pay attention to the comments and questions posted by Aldermen Cheryl Kross and Sonya Shyrock, beginning at 2:05:50 when Shryocks hand pops up and states: "Most of the Directors did a great job on their budgets." I'm scratching my head trying to figure out which directors (who are good enough to still be here) did a bad job in Shryocks's estimation. It's a wonder to me why after watching this section of the meeting, that any of our directors are still here at all.

 

I was disappointed to hear our Parks Director, Ms. Mary Jo Dessieux has turned in her retirement papers. I asked her if she had won the lottery, or had a rich uncle die, because she's way too young to retire. Watching this portion of the video and seeing the wolf pack of Kross and Shryock try to gut the parks department budget gave me the answer.

 

The parks department has always, and I want to emphasize the word ALWAYS, been subsidized by the general fund. City parks are not self-funding, never have been and never will be, therefore, the general fund is tapped for the shortfall. This year the number is in the $200,000 range, when in years past it was as much as a million dollars. Kross and Shryock can't seem to understand that parks will never show a balanced budget but that didn't stop Shryock from demanding; "I want this budget balanced now!" Obviously, Ms. Kross and Shryock want some services cut from our current parks to make up for the shortfall, even to the extent of under-funding the new unfinished parks.

 

Kross at one time said; "Every year we have this white elephant in the room that we can't seem to take down with the tranquilizer gun." I watched the department heads while these discussions went on and noted the frustration in each of them while they tried to baby-sit Kross and Shryock through their prospected budgets. It wasn't pretty. In the end, Kross and Shryock were the only ones to want the Parks budget balanced.

One discussion I found interesting was brought up by Kross and supported by Shryock was regarding the addition of a Park Ranger in the 2014 budget. Kross doesn't want a new park ranger so as a solution she wants to take police officers off of their regular rounds to patrol the City parks. Recently, we had Mayor Nickolas Guccione getting "double fine zones" put in various subdivisions around the city without increasing police resources and now Kross wants more area patrolled. Kross uses the term; "life, health, and safety" a whole lot, which she started using a couple of years ago after hearing another alderman use it, yet she is willing to take our police off of the streets to patrol the new and existing parks. What am I missing? Shryock has little, or no chance of seeing a second term as alderman but she is following Kross right up to the edge of a cliff where Kross will pat her on the back over the edge.

Kross dominated the budget discussions with micro-managing, line-item minutia, while supporting unsustainable tax cut analysis burdens on Finance Director, Jeff Lenk. Lenk was directed to have his calculations ready by Friday, he said he would do his best to get it done before the budget public hearing to be held November 13th. After laying more work on an already over-worked finance department for something that will come back as an exercise in futility, Kross wasn't happy with Lenk's answer. "Oh my! How will we have time to read all of this before next Wednesday." Really, this is all you have to worry about, "when will you have time to read it?" From what I heard, Mr. Lenk gave good reasons why a tax-cut at this time would be unsustainable in coming years, but his assessment fell on deaf ears. If after making Lenk do this new analysis and it shows that a tax-cut is unsustainable, Kross needs to turn in her keys to the city.

This meeting of November 6th exhibited exactly why our high-level staff members are quitting or retiring at an alarming rate. Kross acts like the city has a full compliment of employees by making unreasonable demands of the few over-worked directors that we still do have. I wonder if our newly hired Public Works Director, Susan Mueller, and Finance Director, Jeff Lenk had any idea of the madhouse they were getting into. I'm now asking myself; Was Mayor Lambi really wrong when he had a muzzle on Alderman Cheryl Kross?

 

Running Out Of Options!

 

I've been doing a great deal of thinking about the vacancy left in the City Administrator position since the unexpected passing of T. Michael McDowell earlier this month. Since 2011 Wentzville has been without a City Administrator more than it has had one.

 

A little history: Wentzville has had a problem with keeping a City Administrator since Andy McCown announced his retirement on January 23rd, 2008. Dianna Wright started June 2nd, 2008 and in an executive session held August 24th, 2011, Alderman Nickolas Guccione made a motion (which passed) to terminate her services. On Thursday August 25th, at 1:30 in the afternoon she was officially fired by Mayor Paul Lambi. Since that time Wentzville has been served by numerous interim City Administrators until the appearance of T. Michael McDowell this past May.

 

Now, what is happening: Mayor Guccione appoints Chief of Police, Lisa Harrison and it is approved by the board of aldermen. Less than a week after that, Chief Harrison resigns as City Administrator and resumes her duties as Chief of Police. Last Friday, August 16th, Guccione appoints Doug Lee who has been serving as the assistant City Administrator and assistant to the Public Works Director, Susan Mueller. That appointment would need approval of the board, but I've heard that Mr. Lee does not want the job. So what now?

 

Normally, a vacancy of that sort would fall to the Finance Director but in this case our Finance Director, Jeff Lenk has only been with the city for about two months, so who's next? Director of Planning and Zoning, Mr. Doug Forbeck who has been with the city longer than any Director, Alderman or Mayor, but I don't think he would take it. So here we are, waiting for the company who provided McDowell to present a replacement.

 

After some deliberation, I've begun thinking about cities around the country who have an all-in-one Mayor/City Manager. Could our Mayor serve as both, and if he could, should he? I know Guccione doesn't have the educational qualifications, but he has served five years on the Board of Aldermen and a year and half as Mayor, he must have learned something.  Almost seven years of public service as a legislator and administrator, could he do the job? Personally, I think he should give it a shot, even if it's to prove that he is competent and dissuade beliefs that he should have stayed a butcher at Schnucks. Guccione serving as Mayor/Interim City Administrator would solve a great deal of the problems currently facing the city.

 

PSS: What do you think?