Archive | County Gov’t RSS feed for this section

Waller Eyes Run for County Clerk

21 Dec

Jefferson County Executive Ken Waller, dogged with continuing questions over his lawsuits against the county, faced with a recall effort, and locked in a dysfunctional relationship with the county council, announced in July that he would not run for a third term as county executive. But he kept the door open to running for something else. And now he has updated his campaign committee with the Missouri Ethics Commission, which oversees campaign finance, to state that he intends to run for county clerk in 2018.

clerk committee

Screen shot from Ken Waller campaign committee page at mec.mo.gov

Much of what Waller does is done out of personal animosity, even though he loudly denies it. For example, that time he removed council chairwoman Renee Reuter from her seat on the East-West Gateway board after she called him out for his ongoing conflict of interest in which he is preventing the county from paying the legal bills to defend against his lawsuits.

On this note, guess who is already planning to run for county clerk as a GOP candidate? A guy named Jeremy Day, who ran unsuccessfully for the job in 2014 and who just happens to be one of the leaders of the effort to recall Waller. Day has not announced publicly, but he has made it known in political circles that he is running again, and Waller knows this.

This is not to say that Day owns the nomination since he was first in. We just have to ask whether Waller wants the job because he has something to offer the residents of the county as clerk, or if he just wants 1) a paycheck, and 2) revenge.

The other office Waller had expressed interest in was circuit clerk, a job held by Republican Mike Reuter, who happens to be the husband of the aforementioned Renee Reuter, and thus another person Waller may want to take on for personal reasons.

There were also whispers that Waller wanted to challenge GOP State Senator Paul Wieland, with whom he has also had disagreements (I sense a pattern here).

It should be mentioned that county clerk is one of the few county elected offices still held by Democrats. The incumbent is Randy Holman, who was appointed by…Ken Waller, after longtime clerk Wes Wagner retired and Waller had to appoint another Democrat, per the county charter. If Waller gets the nomination, he will have to explain to voters why he is a better choice for auditor than the guy he appointed to be auditor and spoke glowingly about. Unless Waller and Holman made some sort of “step aside in 2018” deal.

Waller will be a formidable candidate for clerk, with his $65,000 campaign fund and his widespread name recognition as a veteran Republican politician in a Republican county. But he needs to tell us why he really wants the job, and whether he will be able to get along with the people that he needs to get along with to do it.

Advertisements

Jefferson County Government Chaos Continues

16 Nov

Despite a full agenda that included approving higher-cost insurance coverage for county employees, appointing several people to county boards, adopting a procedure to fill resigning councilman Jim Kasten’s seat (Democrat, district 5), and dealing with a controversial zoning change on Old Lemay Ferry Road, the council instead voted to adjourn its November 13 meeting early in a continuing, seemingly intractable row between the council and County Executive Ken Waller over the payment of legal bills to defend the county against two lawsuits filed by county officeholders, including Waller himself.

After public comments part of the meeting, which happens right after roll call and in this case took over half an hour (mostly focused on the insurance issue), it was time to approve the agenda of the meeting. Councilman Don Bickowski (GOP, district 1) made a motion to add to the agenda a “resolution to acknowledge the valid obligations of Jefferson County to pay for legal services.” At a special meeting on November 6, the council voted to have this item placed on the agenda for the November 13 meeting, as the county charter allows in section 3.5.10. However, Waller did not place the item on the agenda. County counselor Tony Dorsett stated at Monday night’s meeting that there were unspecified “errors” with this vote, which apparently explain Waller’s failure to add the item to the agenda.

Dorsett also stated that, because of the Sunshine law and the charter’s 72-hour rule, both regarding advanced notice to the public of meeting agenda items, Bickowski’s resolution could not be added to the agenda. Some discussion took place over whether these rules apply to resolutions as opposed to bills, and Waller, in his role as chairman of the meeting, refused to allow a vote on this motion, stating at one point that “we aren’t going anywhere.” The meeting was at a standstill.

Bickowski then motioned to adjourn, and this motion passed on a 5-2 vote, with councilwoman Renee Reuter (GOP, district 2), who had been pressing for a vote on Bickowski’s agenda item, and councilman Phil Hendrickson (GOP, district 3), voting no. Though clearly frustrated, Kasten voted yes on the motion. So the meeting ended. The above described events can be watched on video here, starting at the 43:30 mark (the back-and-forth only lasted 10 minutes).

I’m not sure how this conflict over the legal bills is going to be settled (besides Waller resigning), but the county has to pay for services it has already received, and it is undeniable that Waller has a big conflict of interest here, since he was involved in bringing these lawsuits (one is a money grab for politicians, the other was a spat over who can remove county board members). However, I do not see what was accomplished by adjourning the meeting prematurely and delaying a lot of needed actions.

Judge Reverses Council on Zoning Rejection

5 Nov

I have written before about what I see as the Jefferson County Council’s excessive willingness to deny rezoning applications filed by people trying to start new businesses, instead siding with the NIMBY interests of neighboring landowners. On this subject, we had a case last month (16JE-CC00344) in which a rejected applicant sued the county and won, with the judge ordering the council to approve the rezoning request.

It was in April 2016 that the council heard a request by Tony Pona to rezone land at Miller Road and West Outer Road in Imperial from residential to commercial in order to open a mini-storage and boat/RV storage facility. The county staff and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the project, but the county council rejected it (see meeting minutes here). Pona filed a lawsuit a month later.

In October, JeffCo judge Troy Cardona sided with Pona, stating that:

The reasoning for the denial was at best conjecture and refuted by the evidence presented. The denial cites to traffic concerns as one of the main reasons for denial, yet such speculation used in the denial was refuted by a traffic study that showed little to no impact on traffic. It has been held that it is incongruous to use existing traffic conditions to limit a property owner to a use which those very traffic conditions have made undesirable.

At the council’s October 23 meeting, it passed the first of three votes of approval of the storage project. This was after moving the vote to the end of the meeting, after a closed session that presumably was used to discuss this case and the judge’s order.

This case goes to show that business owners have avenues to challenge the council if it makes improper zoning denials.

Waller Lawsuit Dismissed

27 Oct

Jefferson County Executive Ken Waller (Republican) was a plaintiff in two lawsuits. One was asking for more salary for county elected officials. This suit is ongoing, but Waller took his name off of it (though he probably still stands to gain if it succeeds). The second suit was filed against the county council in a dispute about who can remove the appointed members of county boards (the council or the executive) in the wake of a recent piece of county legislation. On Tuesday, a judge granted the council’s motion to dismiss this suit.

Part of the judge’s decision was whether to enforce the settlement that was initially agreed to in the case. Apparently the two attorneys in the case made a deal, but the council did not accept the deal and thus did not vote to accept it. Waller asked the judge to make them accept it, but he ruled that a deal isn’t a deal until it is made official, so he would not enforce the settlement.

The dismissal of the case centers on ripeness. You can’t sue over a hypothetical. Nobody is actually trying to remove a board member at this time, so there is no dispute for the judge to decide on. So this case is over for now. It could be filed again if an attempt was made to remove a board member.

This seems like a fairly obvious result. However, it took seven months and tens of thousands of dollars of legal bills to get here. Thanks, Ken.

Update: Waller Response

Here is a press release Waller issued in response to the judge’s decision:

waller press release board lawsuit.jpg

Paying the Bills for the Lawsuits

There is an ongoing dispute over the payment of the legal bills for the county to defend against the lawsuits filed by the sue-happy county exec. First, Waller tried to cut the allocation for legal defense from $100,000 down to $25,000. This drew a strong rebuke from councilwoman Renee Reuter, who Waller then retaliated against by removing her from the East-West Gateway council.

There is also a question about the date that the council’s lawyers started working on the cases versus the date when the money was allocated (the council argued that the relationship with the attorney and the allocation of money were pre-existing). The council is trying to clarify the effective date of the appropriation, but Waller vetoed the change, in a clear conflict of interest (he is once again trying to cripple the defense against his lawsuits). The council tried at its Monday night meeting to override this veto, but fell one vote short, according to the JeffCo Citizens for Honest Government Facebook page. As has happened several times that I can recall, an absence from the council doomed a bill, as councilman Dan Stallman (GOP) was not there. In addition, new councilman Phil Hendrickson (GOP) abstained, as he did on a vote to add additional money to the legal defense fund. (He abstained when the vetoed bill was originally passed, but that was on the day he was sworn in to the council, so I can excuse that). So it is not clear where we go now in this dispute.

These abstentions by Hendrickson are wrong. It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t on the council when all this stuff started. He’s on there now, and he needs to take a stand. If he doesn’t want to, he should not have applied to fill the seat. In addition, council members need to be present for meetings.

Roorda to Run For County Exec

6 Oct

Before I begin, I thought I would point out that Jeff Roorda has been blocked on Wikipedia for trying to edit his own page to make himself look better.

One might have thought that after losing two elections in a row in rightward-moving Jefferson County (2014 and 2016), Jeff Roorda’s political career was over (at least as a Democrat). But Roorda, a former state representative and current business manager for the St. Louis Police Union, has decided to give it another shot, this time with a run for county executive in 2018.

Roorda is in an odd position. He has spent the last three years focused entirely on St. Louis issues, but wants to lead Jefferson County. He has also spent the last three years stoking divisions, but claims he can work with the county council in a harmonious manner. His ability to stir up controversy is rewarded with book sales and CNN appearances, but it is not useful in governing.

In the Leader this week, Roorda mentions the current “bitter fighting” that takes places between the council and the current executive, Ken Waller, who is not seeking another term (at least not in that position). He is right about that. But would Roorda be better? Waller at least put on a genial face in public (which has been enough to fool the Leader) while carrying out his skullduggery behind closed doors. But Roorda is open with his harsh remarks and aggressive behavior. I don’t see how that will bring about good relationships.

Loyal Democrat

In an interview with former House speaker Tim Jones on 97.1 FM, Roorda said that the Democratic party has gone too far with this Black Lives Matter stuff and become what he considers to be anti-police. He says that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton hurt JeffCo Democrats because of this, and that this issue is what gave Donald Trump the victory last year.

Since protecting police from any scrutiny or oversight is his main issue, I was expecting Roorda to come out and endorse Trump in the last election, but he did not. He refused to endorse Clinton in a Leader candidate questionnaire. I was even thinking that Roorda might opportunistically try to switch parties. He regularly runs as a conservative, pro-life, pro-gun candidate. I thought he might go with the JeffCo flow and try to increase his chances of victory with a switch to the GOP, but he has not done so.

Negativity

Roorda claims to be friends with his presumable GOP opponent in the race, recently-resigned state House representative John McCaherty, and says the race will be clean and issue-based. But given Roorda’s history of harsh attacks and questionable claims, I don’t think that will last.

Wild Card

Roorda is disliked by many in the city, particularly on the left, for his various controversial actions. He has said that if he wins this race he will resign from the police union. Therefore, many in the city will be pulling for him to win in order to be rid of him. But will that turn into concrete support, given in a way that won’t alienate JeffCo voters?

Waller Won’t Run Again; What’s Next?

31 Jul

Jefferson County executive Ken Waller announced on July 17 that he won’t run for a third term next year, according to the Leader.

Waller, a Republican, did not close the door on running for something else; he cited his $65,000 campaign war chest and said there were state and county level positions that “may be appealing” to him. In a KJFF interview, I’m told that he specifically cited county clerk and circuit clerk as two jobs he might be interested. These are two interesting choices.

The circuit clerk job is currently held by another Republican, Mike Reuter. He is the husband of one of Waller’s main foes on the county council, Renee Reuter. Waller kicked her out of the JeffCo seat on the East-West Gateway Board last month after she called him out for trying to take away money the county was using to defend itself against lawsuits Waller is involved in. And Jeremy Day, who has announced his intention to run for the GOP nomination for county clerk, is one of the people who brought the recall petition against Waller.

Given these facts, it would almost appear that Waller selected the positions he may run for, not out of personal talents or interest, but out of spite for his political enemies. That is not a good look.

It would also be strange if Waller were to face off in the general election against incumbent Democrat Randy Holman for county clerk. Waller appointed Holman to that position when Wes Wagner resigned. How would Waller argue that the guy he appointed should be voted out of office?

As for city administrator jobs, Waller confirms what was reported exclusively here, that he unsuccessfully attempted to get the Festus job earlier this year. I see in the Leader ads that Hillsboro is looking for a city administrator/city clerk, but they are only offering $45-55,000 in salary. I suspect that’s lower than what Waller will accept. The Festus job was worth $90,000, and Waller currently makes about $81,000. And until recently, he used to be part of a lawsuit suing the taxpayers for more salary.

Council Makes Right Decision on a Rezoning

29 Jul

It was heartening to read in this week’s Leader that the Jefferson County Council reversed a previous negative vote on a rezoning proposal for a trailer sales and service facility near DeSoto on July 24, putting the project on track for approval. While the GOP-dominated council has done good things over the years, too often it has shot down proposals for the new businesses that our county needs. Instead it defers in too many cases to the overwrought, predictable concerns of neighbors who want to control other people’s property.

In this case, council members Dan Stallman and Jim Kasten (the lone Democrat) voted yes both times, while Renee Reuter changed from no to yes and Don Bickowski switched from abstain to yes. Previously absent Jim Terry voted yes also. Bob Boyer and Charles Groeteke were the no votes both times. The original 3-2 vote against became a 5-2 vote in favor.

I did not like the quote in the Leader from Reuter, who said:

It’s always difficult when you have competing groups from the public. I try to vote with what I think is the majority.

That should not be the criteria, whether a majority of neighbors approve of a proposal. These are situations where people are trying to do things with their own land. Zoning rules have a purpose, but unless a proposal presents an egregious issue, property owners should be able to proceed with their projects. In this case, the county’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), which considers proposals before the council does, voted unanimously to recommend this project for approval.

The P&Z made the same unanimous vote in another recent controversial case, in which an apartment complex has been proposed for a long-vacant parcel in Imperial. Of course, the neighbors want to continue to have an empty lot next to them. Don’t we all want to control the land around us for our benefit? Groeteke invoked the classic argument against new developments:

I’m not against development. We need development in Jefferson County. But this is not the right kind of development.

Opponents of new projects always say they approved of new projects, just not in the proposed location, which happens to be near their house. This same argument was advanced to oppose converting another long-vacant building in Imperial to transitional housing for the homeless (which P&Z recently voted in favor of). They want the project to go near someone else’s house. Groeteke also invoked the often-seen “layperson knows best” argument about this property that has been for sale for 12 years.

I think it would be conducive to professional or medical offices, he said. The key is to get more revenue for the county, not just apartment buildings where people just live there.

Everyone thinks they know what project should go where, but they aren’t businesspeople or developers. Clearly the market has no interest in putting offices in this location. And I will add that the people who would have occupied these apartments would have paid plenty of local sales and personal property taxes, and the apartment owner would have paid property taxes. Plus, adding 84 apartments worth of people to the area might encourage more businesses to open.

The apartment project was rejected by the council on a 6-1 vote, with Boyer the only vote in favor. It was officially denied by the same vote at the July 24 council meeting.

As for the affirmative vote on the trailer sales proposal, county executive Ken Waller approved of it, saying correctly that the council has “talked about growth and economic development for a long time.”

%d bloggers like this: