Thayer Taxpayers Association Blog

A city councilman has received what he perceives to be a threatening anonymous letter demanding the firing of a certain city manager employee for "sitting on his can" while needed repairs go undone.

The councilman reported the letter to the FBI for it's "threatening" nature.

I have seen a copy of the letter, and the only "threats" in it are that the writer (who signed the letter "Concerned Voter") will not vote for the councilman and will work against his re-election if the employee is not fired.

"I won't vote for you" is threatening?

Can you say "paranoid"?

I have to wonder how hard the FBI agent on the other end of the phone line laughed at him.

but here are some of my notes on the 2.14.06 Thayer City Council meeting:

Contrary to what was published beforehand, there was no question-and-answer session about the sidewalk grant. Which is too bad, because I wanted to ask where the city's 20% would come from -- if it was money we already have lying around somewhere or if it is money that will have to be raised. I also wanted to ask how much the maintenance of the new sidewalk will increase the city's budget.

There WAS a meeting beginning at 6:45, supposedly about the annexation of Highway 63 south to the state line. They opened the meeting and announced what it was about, then sat and looked at each other for the next fifteen minutes. No discussion, no motions to approve anything. Nothing. When the fifteen minutes were up, they closed that meeting and opened the regular meeting.

It made me wonder if our city council is suffering from some sort of collective mental illness.

In the regular meeting, there were several routine "housekeeping" issues -- approval of minutes, paying bills, fire department minutes, etc.

The March city council meeting was unanimously rescheduled for the third Tuesday, which is 3/21, at 7:00 PM.

The city will publish a 6-month financial statement in the newspaper.

A city administrator ordinance was tabled by a unanimous vote on a motion made by Buddy Rogers.

A couple of mutual aid agreements were passed.

Ordinance #987 "Regulating provision for use of water outside buildings" was passed.

Cleanup week was unanimously scheduled for March 27th.

The caboose is scheduled to open March 20th. One of the council members asked City Manager Administrator Gary Barton about whether or not "they" (I assume this meant the TCBA) would be able to pay what they owe on it. He sort of mumbled a response, so I'm not 100% sure what his reply was, but I'm pretty certain he said "They said they can pay half."

Half? Are we writing off the TCBA's obligations now?

There was discussion of a USDA rural development grant to get a 2004 police car. The city's cost would be $3750. They could save about a thousand bucks and not have to go through the grant process by simply going to GovDeals.com and bidding on a model that's just a couple of years older.

Gary Barton reported that electric rates will rise 10.52% for the year beginning February 1. I didn't catch whether this increase will be on the amount the City of Thayer pays it's suppliers or on the amount the city charges it's customers.

The council went into closed session at 7:35.

At the council room at Thayer City Hall.

One of the topics is a grant for new sidewalks in which the city would have to come up with 20% of the cost.

7:00 PM. High School Library.

I may or may not attend. My attention is focused on city hall at the moment, and I learned from the last school board meeting that the way they conduct the meeting isn't really conducive to the public finding out anything.

But if you do attend and want to take notes for me, let me know.

In this week's dead-tree copy (but not yet in the online version) of the South Missourian News, we find on the front page a story, "Thayer seeks grants."

It begins,

"Thayer city [Manager]employee Gary Barton announced last week he will be submitting an application for a Transportation Enhancement Funds grant from the Missouri Department of Transportation."

The grants are supposedly to build more sidewalks. As if we truly need more sidewalks. He doesn't know how much the grant will be, but suggests a range anywhere from $25,000 to $250,000.

The kicker is that the grants require a 20% match from the city. Where will the city's 20% come from? Using his own speculation, that part could be anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000. Does the city have fifty thou just lying around that we don't know about?

Doing a project just because you can get a grant to pay 80% is akin to spending your last five dollars to buy a product you don't need or especially want just because you have a coupon for it.

Prior to the February 14th city council meeting, beginning at 6:45 PM in the council room at Thayer city hall, there will be a public meeting with a question and answer session about the grant application.

I'll be there. I hope you are, too.

2.10.06 Update: The SMN has the story posted online now.

I think the city of Thayer may be manipulating the electric and water readings. Take this example from my own experience.

On this month's bill, the dates are said to be from 12/11/05 to 1/11/06, which would mean that the meters were read on the eleventh.

It says my "present" electric reading was 43688 and that the previous reading was 42923, a usage of 765 kilowatt hours.

And it says my "present" water reading was 6243 and that the previous reading was 6221, a usage of 22 units. One unit (I think) is 100 gallons.

Keep in mind that on water, there is a 20 unit minimum. You have to pay for 20 units, even if you use much less than that.

What they don't know is that every couple of days, I read and write down my OWN meter readings.

And on the 11th, the electric was 43558 and the water was 6239.8. Which means I actually used 635 kwh, not 765. That means the city is getting the money for the difference (130 kwh) a month before it should.

And for the water, I actually used 17.8 units, not 22. I would have to pay for 20 units, so the difference is 2 units.

That may not seem like a lot, but let's fast forward a bit, to yesterday, the 8th. My readings were 44076 on electric and 6253.5 on the water. And if they read the meters when they SAY they do, it's due to be read Friday or Monday (because of the weekend.)

Let's take the water as an easy example. Because they over-read last month by 4.2 units, they will UNDER-read this month by 4.2. By their readings, this month I've used 10.5 units. By the ACTUAL readings, I've used 14.7. At most, I have four days until the next reading. My 14.7 is a lot closer to the 20 unit minimum than their 10.5 is.

To make it easier to understand, let's say that over the 2 months, you used 40 units, 20 units per month. If they read the meters correctly, you pay for the 40 units, which is what you get.

But let's say they read the meters late the first month, so that it says you used 30. That means you pay for 30 units the first month. Then, the second month, they read the meter on time, which is 10 units later than the previous reading. Because of the minimum, you pay for 20 units even though you only get 10.

30 + 20 = 50 units, which is what you would pay for the 40 units. If they had read them on time, your cost would be 20 + 20, which is 40 units.

And if you're wondering if the late reading is just a coincidence, that maybe last month the eleventh fell on the weekend, let's take a look at when they actually DID read the meters. My calendar, on which I write the readings, says the electric readings of 43688 and 6243 happened on either the 17th or 18th, not the eleventh. That is SEVEN or EIGHT days late.

Keep an eye on your meters, folks. And if you run into trouble, raise hell with the city. If that gets you nowhere (as I think it probably will), contact the Missouri Public Service Commission. An online complaint form can be found here.

How many politicians does it take to sign a proclamation?

That's the question that came to mind when I saw the front page picture in this week's South Missourian News of the signing of Thayer's Ronald McDonald House Week proclamation.

The picture is of mayor Allen Deckard. And Municipal Tax Collector Janice Tolar. And Municipal Clerk Rosie Simpson. And "city employee" (meaning City Manager Administrator) Gary Barton.

Think of that the next time you see a road crew with one man working and three men leaning on shovels.

I expected some flak for my latest letter to the editor, printed last week in the South Missourian News. Maybe the TCBA would respond with letters to the editor of their own.

So I was disappointed when I opened today's edition and found no such letters.

Then I read the "Our View" column, and was greatly amused at the lengths the editors went to not to say what they were saying. Nowhere in the column does my name appear, nor does any specific reference to my letter. But even rudimentary reading between the lines and consideration of the timing of the article leave me with little doubt what they are talking about.

They rarely put such things in their online edition, so if you want to read the whole thing, I'd advise getting a dead-tree copy. If you don't want to buy one, they have a copy at the Thayer Library for people to read there.

Here are some of the most relevant excerpts, from the piece titled "Too opinionated?":

A reader once complained, with no sense of irony, that the letters to the editor are too opinionated.

To complain that letters are too opinionated is akin to complaining that news stories are too factual.

Given that my letter was the only one to appear in last week's SMN, I think it's reasonable to assume that any complaints they got about printing a letter to the editor were about mine.

And it was certainly more opinionated than the usual stranded-motorist-thanking-the-good-samaritan-who-gave-her-a-lift fare that often appears in the paper's letters to the editor.

Perhaps more opinionated than the many people's comfort zone allows.

...
[In a poll conducted by the newspaper awhile back, some respondents complained about the length of letters to the editor.] We already had a word limit but enforced it only on rare occasions when we couldn't get all the letters to fit. We now enforce it more strictly -- but still not absolutely.

What was it I said about how they might not print my letter because it was too long? I didn't actually count the words, but it was fairly lengthy. It's hard to have an in-depth discussion of an issue with a 300 word limit. Nice of them to give me a heads-up about future letters, though.

Readers [responding to the same poll] complained about the writers whose letters appear frequently, a couple suggesting that writers be limited to a single letter each month. That was actually the policy already, but we have since restricted it even further; we don't publish letters from the same writer on the same subject in back-to-back letters, even if they are a month apart.

The poll was conducted "a few years ago." The timing of bringing up the response now is interesting. The column continues with a listing and explanation of some of it's letter policies. Among the most relevant are:

We reserve the right to edit all letters.

Remember how I complained about them taking out an important part of my letter, and using my title as the first sentence of the letter, so they could write their own title?

Writers should limit submissions to no more than once a month.

My previous letter was in November, which is more than a month, but I can certainly see people who disagree with me griping about the frequency of my letters.

Letters should not exceed 300 words.

As explained above, my letter was rather lengthy, so I can see those same people raising hell with the paper about how my letter didn't comply with their policy. But here, the paper comes to my, and their own, defense in such circumstances:

However, on that rare occasion when we deem a writer particularly articulate or insightful, we bend the rule.

...
Letters must include the name and phone number of the writer for verification.

Mine did, but that begs the question, did they get anonymous hate mail about my letter? If so, I'd like to see it.

The column closes with a sentence that both defends and scolds me, as well as plays a little CYOA:

Responsible editors try to provide objective leadership on issues through editorials, but honest editors also recognize there are many viewpoints on any issue, and the public good is served by airing those viewpoints even when -- perhaps especially when -- those viewpoints are contrary to the editorials.

IF it is the case that the paper received complaints about them printing my letter, then it is interesting to note that the complainers chose not REFUTE my assertations in a letter or a blog of their own, but rather to try to silence me by pressuring the paper.

Is it a case of "When you can't deny the message, silence the messenger."?

UPDATE: The SMN actually did put it in their online edition.