Article in question

Recently much has been made of an article that the Community Free Press printed and that article is posted below. The uproar has been raised by one of my challengers Robert Stephen's who seems to believe that the CFP is being biased because they printed an article penned by me on the police and fire pension shortfall and the wording of what would transpire if indeed this tax passed. If Mr Stephens was as concerned for this community as he lets on he is, he would have been speaking out on the obvious ploy on words which would have had the city possibly once more short funding the obligation of the police and fire pension system. Added to this complaint is that KSGF broadcast live from our other challengers place of business Big Momma's Coffeehouse on Commercial Street.

Never does Mr Stephens point out that KSGF was broadcasting from Big Momma's long before Lyle Foster was even a candidate, and the article written below was penned by me before I even turned in my signatures. Not once do I mention that I was thinking about being a candidate during this article so Mr Stephens is way off base on his assessment of favoritism.

Much has been made lately of the 45 minute presentation to solve the police and fire pension system given by City Manager Greg Burris. I have had the opportunity to sit through a couple of these presentations along with viewing the one on the internet and I believe there is much room for improvement.

After passage of this tax increase the plan will generate up to 40 million dollars annually in revenue for the pension system, depending on shopping habits and tourism. Based on the current verbiage of the bill this tax increase will sunset in five years, or when the pension is 100% funded. Milliman, the company tasked with finding the solution to the funding shortfall, is one of the country's largest investment consulting firms in terms of assets under advisement. Included in the initial findings of Milliman was a statement that it would require six or more years to fund the pension plan fully. In his presentation, City Manager Greg Burris has PROMISED that the city will contribute 29.88% funding into the pension plan during the five year timeframe. This means that approximately 40 to 50 million dollars will be placed in the pension system by the end of the first year of this tax. The reason for all this was so every player on the field has "skin in the game.” This should put us well on the way to solvency you’re thinking; NOT so fast!! The devil is in the details.

Here in lies the problem with this bailout plan of our city manager. Once We The People have voted YES to increase our taxes, absolutely NOTHING prevents the city council from spending the 29.88% else where in the confines of the city; just as occurred earlier when the city failed to fund the plan for four straight years. The skin that the city has in the game can be overlooked because the sales tax will be generating the required actuarial amount, thus allowing the city to meet the guidelines of state statute. There have been numerous requests that an ordinance be passed forcing city council to fund this 29.88%; however road blocks keep getting thrown in the way under the heading of, binding future city councils. According to City Attorney, Dan Wichmer, binding future city councils is defined as:

Budget is year to year. It is only good for 1 year. That is why we can't bind future councils. We cannot make fiscal commitments beyond 1 year. Even bonds are subject to annual appropriation.

In short one council cannot oblige another council with commitments, which in hindsight is exactly what has been done with the short funding. Past city councils obligated present and future city councils for this debt.

A cursory research project was started to define what "binding a future city council” meant and how it pertains to our situation and the response we found came directly out of the California constitution. The following is a basic rule for municipal law;

*The Power and Limitations of a City*

*Binding Future Councils* One city council cannot forever tie the hands of future city council with respect to legislative enactments; no ordinance passed by one city council may remain beyond the repeal or amendment of a future city council. Each council is elected by the people to serve the needs and desires of the people at that time, and cannot be restricted, from a legislative standpoint, by prior council action. A council may however enter into certain long-term contracts such as leases, cable television franchises, or rubbish contracts, provided there are not antitrust (anti competitiveness) problems.

By the definition of binding future city councils anyone can see nothing prevents city council from passing an ordinance requiring that the guaranteed amount promised by City Manager Greg Burris of 29.88% gets funded. The argument being used by our city attorney is disingenuous and has people asking, why won't our elected leaders put "skin in the game" and pass an ordinance requiring the city to fund the portion for which they are responsible?

The city leaders have earned the distrust of the citizens of Springfield and closing this obvious loophole with a proactive approach will benefit the city, city management and city council.

Who's calling who out

On a recent episode of our local talk show two interesting topics of Ron Paul was brought up. It appears the first one was a caller who generally wondered what the position of the host was on Ron Paul. It is NO secret that many media sources have gone out of their way to promote an agenda that is trying to discredit the Paul movement. Anyone with a thimble of common sense can go look at Mr. Paul's voting record or his web site to see this representative is the MOST Constitutional candidate this nation has seen since Thomas Jefferson. Media types are more than willing to misrepresent this man because they know very few people will do the research on their own, however the information is out there for the curious too look at.

One only need to listen to the speeches of Ronald Reagan and the voting record of Ron Paul to see that Mr. Paul is by far the most experienced and constitutional candidate on the floor of the House of Representatives.

During the show this morning it was said by our local radio show host that the people in the Ron Paul movement have tried to get said radio host fired from his position and by caveat have come after his family. Too bad it wasn't rating sweep week as this would've moved him straight to the top of the ratings heap. I have it on good authority the people who went down to the radio station asked for EQUAL TIME to present their side of this one sided argument. VD Jericho has misrepresented Ron Paul and those in this movement for quite some time so it is only telling that they would want for their side of the information to be presented as well. Mr. Jericho hasn't mentioned quite a few times that he would be willing to have some public discourse on this topic, but apparently he has backed out on this position. I guess he has been told by Dr. Scott Magill that this movement actually has intellectual people in it that can hold their own in the narrative sense. Can't dare do anything to make the host look like an idiot.

This Ron Paul movement has been portrayed as a socialist movement, a peace network movement, and various other ideas which in NO means could be possible of "TRUE" Ron Paul supporters. It is quite possible for a few people to infiltrate the ranks but the vast majority of Paul supporters are firms believers in the Constitution, and are far more conservative then most in the Republican Party. After all we have local republicans serving in the state legislature who haven't a care in the world that private property rights are being usurped by local governments, and in the mean time these representative have DONE nothing but pay lip service to the idea of protecting these rights. And yes I can name names should I need to do so and back it up with proof. I would sooner have a couple of peace nuts in my movement then have elected state officials in my party who could careless about MY property rights and ownership of land.

It has been said the Paul supporters are trying to usurp the rules of the delegation process so they can nominate Paul from the floor at the convention in MN. Here in MO the Republican Party literally sent out hundreds if not thousands of certified letters trying to challenge those that had been elected delegates and alternatives, because these individuals had had their loyalty to the party challenged including yours truly. I knew I was going to be challenged after all I hold an elected position for the local Libertarian Party, but for the party to go to this extreme shows clearly that those working for liberty and the Constitution are NOT WELCOME in the party which espouses its belief in such.

It is said that Mr. Paul is an isolationist, a liberal for his stance on the War on Terrorism, even though he voted to go into Afghanistan, a lunatic for wanting the U.S. to go back to the gold standard. An abortionist even though he states in many areas he is PRO-LIFE. How does this information get so misleading ?? Ron Paul is an advocate for states rights which means the federal government will abide by Amendment X. This type of thinking scares many in the Republican Party as this means some of their pet projects and government programs will be dismantled and allowed for the states to decide what is best for the population of each state, this is a scary transition for those that have been so successful in creating a NEED for government largess.

http://www.ksgf.com/Podcasts/VincentDavidJerichoThisMorning/tabid/3507/Default.aspx

At 36:30 a gentlemen by the name of Chris comes on to talk about Dr. Paul and his stances, which said radio host once more misrepresents by instituting his own agenda instead of what Dr. Paul has said for himself. This call last until 42:05 with the caller still liking the constitutional aspects of Dr. Paul which means the radio host wasn't able to sway him from his thought process with an untrue diatribe.

Later on in the show a caller by the name of Jim calls in to inform radio host of his well made up fallacies on the issue of Dr. Paul. This happens at 47:42 and last until 50:30 where most of the airtime is wasted on the talk show host calling the caller every name possible with the caller on mute. This speaks volumes of the intelligence level of the host as he isn't able to hold an intelligent conversation with an individual Ron Paul supporter who calls up to call his bluff and misinformation on the subject.

I will give VD Jericho his do as he has done wonderful things here on the local level, but time and time again when he goes to the national level he gets in WAY OVER HIS HEAD and becomes nothing more than a parrot to the mainstream media and political party leadership.