Arnold Makes Purchases from Chief-Related Businesses

3 Apr

Update: In 2013, B&C Retailing was registered to Shockey’s daughter. I have also obtained warrants from 9/9/11 and 10/14/11 which contain payments of $2,461 and $201 to B&C Retailing (relevant page from 2/6/14 warrant also included at that link).

In the February 6, 2014 list of city of Arnold general warrants, on page 8, there is a payment of $735 to a company called B & C Retailing for employee awards.

B & C Retailing is owned by one Robert T. Shockey, who is also Arnold’s police chief. The business address is his home address.

According to random business information web sites, this company was founded in 1995, does engraving work, has a sales volume of about $60,000, and has one employee.

Did Arnold choose to do business with this vendor because they are the best value in engraving, or because it is owned by the police chief?

Additionally, I have it on good authority that a company called Fran Ann Engraving was used to supply medals for the 2013 Arnold Days fishing derby. Fran Ann is owned by a Rich Bath. Bath is a partner with Shockey and his wife in a corporation called RRC Enterprises, LLC. Judith, the chief’s wife, is the registered agent, and the corporation’s address is also that of the Shockey residence.

However, a glance at the October 3, 2013 general warrants, page 14, lists a payment of $288 to a Russ Ahlheim for “fishing metals [sic].” Ahlheim is associated with a corporation called Ad Source One, LLC, which is presumably housed at Ahlheim’s residence, located a mere one mile away from the Shockey home. I’m not sure why the city paid Ahlheim for the medals. I would be interested to know who the medals were purchased from in 2012, but I can’t find the entry. Notably, though, the September 20, 2012 warrants are missing from the city web page. Perhaps the answer is there.

Arnold city ordinance Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 2-280(d) says:

Employee owned businesses. City goods or services shall not be obtained from businesses in which city officials, employees or their immediate family members have a majority ownership interest.

These practices I have outlined would seem to violate the ordinance. Also I would submit that the word “majority” should be removed. I have done some searching of the city warrants, but not a whole lot, and I have found no other payments by the city to the above mentioned entities. But there may be more out there. I think that these business relationships should raise some concerns. It is also worth asking who else knows about this? I find it hard to believe this could have taken place without the knowledge of any other employees or elected officials.


14 Responses to “Arnold Makes Purchases from Chief-Related Businesses”

  1. Wilma Sheffer April 3, 2014 at 8:24 am #

    This is what happens when elected officials feel immutable to the law! Entrenched in their power, they rationalize what they do, particularly in putting taxpayers money into their deep pockets! Election time is on us. Will they be given the vote?


    • Doris Borgelt April 3, 2014 at 9:28 am #

      I have to correct the first part of this article as B&C Retailing has been at some recent time transferred to the Chief’s daughter, which doesn’t make it any less illegal. I have plenty of instances of payments of thousands of dollars to B&C, both warrants and invoices, and payments made using the city’s Visa card to purchase goods in the name of the business, delivered to the business. Credit card receipts are not included with the warrants, although I did specifically ask for them to be included as you cannot tell who payments are being made to, only what was purchased when viewing the warrants. Odds are, council members didn’t know or some didn’t care who the company actually belonged to or about the ordinance. I informed the finance director B&C was not registered as a dba with the State of Missouri and was told she[the owner] didn’t know it needed to be and that was done the next day. Certainly they didn’t have a license to do business in our city 🙂 as they didn’t have a license to operate a business out of their homes in St. Louis County. My question follows:
      If you are not a licensed business where you are operating from(home) and you weren’t registered as a dba with the state until last year, how were sales, business and income taxes paid at the city, state and federal level?


  2. Anonymous April 3, 2014 at 11:29 am #

    Doris, yet again you show your ignorance when it comes to business. You don’t need to be a dba. You need to have a business license.

    Just so you know, dba means doing business as. If they were operating under their legal name then they don’t need it.

    Just goes to show You don’t support small business. You sound to me like you would rather close them down than help them out.


  3. Anonymous April 3, 2014 at 11:52 am #

    That is exactly what I just said.


    • wrongonred April 3, 2014 at 12:18 pm #

      No it isn’t. You seem to suggest that all is kosher, yet clearly as JCPenknife just indicated, doing business as B&C Retailing is not in compliance with state requirements. I think Doris likely was referring to a registration of a fictitious name with the SOS with her comments about “dba”s. That was how I understood it. Did you take away a different meaning from her comments?


    • Doris Borgelt April 3, 2014 at 3:45 pm #

      You said nothing of the sort. I think it is time for JCPenknife to restrict posts on here to those who use their true name instead of a fictitious one like Anonymous here. . When someone is doing business under a name other than their given name, the name their use is called a fictitious name or a “dba.”


      • Betty Schneider April 3, 2014 at 6:50 pm #

        I agree as a former small business operator you have to be registered with the SOS in order to receive a business license. The only reason for not registering would be to avoid paying taxes /fees while operating on the former owner’s business license which became immediately invalid when the ownership transferred. Pretty basic in order to do business legally you apply to the SOS, register and then get a business license in your companies name(dba). . anything else is illegal. As to patronizing the Chief or his daughter’s business(doesn’t really matter which one) the charter is clear the City of Arnold cannot legally do business with either one. I wish I still lived in Arnold because if you think you have your hands full with Miss Borgelt, I would have you people tied up in numerous litigations/investigations. If you are going to play dirty try to be smarter about it. These are taxpayer’s funds and while you may think of the taxpayers as sheep, you might be surprised how many these days stay informed about just where their hard earned dollars are going. When you are elected you are made. . ACCOUNTABLE!!!!


    • Anonymous April 3, 2014 at 6:01 pm #

      It’s not even close to what you said Paul.


  4. Spock April 4, 2014 at 10:16 pm #

    Since we want to be candid about names around here Ms. Borgelt why dont we encourage penknife to reveal themselves too? Would it make sense for an anonymous blogger to restrict those that post anonymously? It seems illogical


  5. Doris Borgelt April 4, 2014 at 11:09 pm #

    Way to change the subject! But let’s stick with the one we started with. Illegal activity is allowed to go on in Arnold as long as those breaking the law are the ones running the city or their close friends, relatives or business associates. The City has been purchasing goods in violation of city ordinance from the business owned by the Chief while he has been an employee since at least 2006. Every time is a separate violation according to our ordinances. I think they add up!


    • Anonymous April 6, 2014 at 7:58 am #

      They should look further into this because I personally seen police officers making pick ups and deliveries in their police car’s for the chief. And I’m talking in west port area. Also the printing company they use has kind of connections also I do believe.



  1. A Follow-up on Arnold Chief Shockey’s Illicit Profits | Jefferson County Penknife - April 6, 2014

    […] business scandal involving Arnold police chief Robert Shockey has hit the front page of the Post-Dispatch, courtesy […]


  2. Let’s Not Forget Shockey Nepotism | Jefferson County Penknife - July 7, 2014

    […] to review city “employee and financial policies” formed in the wake of the Shockey business scandal. Will she be reviewing hiring and supervision policies? The police nepotism issue should be of […]


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: