The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO


March 7, 2014

Your View: Won’t be forgotten

JOPLIN, Mo. — After Monday’s Joplin City Council meeting, Richard was very quiet. I was wound up and talking, and he was quiet.

Tuesday was different. He was snappy and growling. Finally, he went to his office and sat down to write the following:

What I saw at the council meeting last night was outrageous.

A Joplin resident, Kim Seavy, addressed the council with the information that he had taken the time to research, namely just how the council had violated the city charter. Their reaction to his well-stated position was to totally ignore him.

Then the $82,000 bill from the investigator came up on the agenda. The five council members stuck to it and voted to pay to pay the bill.

It occurs to me their “hurry up and get it over with” attitude and pay could be because this is their way of covering up their involvement in the misdirection of the investigation and a way to be sure that nobody but their own city attorney would see it or allow it to be seen by the public. Misdirect, pay double, hurry to pay. Sounds strange to me.

They had a contract (a contract!) with the investigator for $40,000 plus $5,000 out of pocket expenses. To my way of thinking if they “let a contract” to say fix the street for $100,000, the contractor should just send a bill for $200,000 and threaten to sue. I guess with the precedence that was set last night, they should pay this bill too?

It was obvious from where I sat that certain members of the council could have cared less; the five were past it and had gotten their way. Their argument was the investigator might sue.

Do the five actually think the Joplin public is stupid? In this case the five voted to pay so that they can control the damage that would hit if the people could actually see what was in it.

Do they actually think this will be forgotten?

I also watched the City attorney who seemed to me lost and backing up the five however he could.

Recalls do happen and people seeking to be on the council should know this.

As Charlie McGrew said, the five have embarrassed this city because of this scandal.

They should be ashamed, but are too arrogant to know it.

Diane and Richard Volk


Text Only
  • Our View.jpg Our View: No need for No. 9

    “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects?”

    July 29, 2014 1 Photo

  • Your View: ‘Right to Farm’ is wrong

    On Aug. 5, voters will be asked to make a decision about Amendment 1.

    July 29, 2014

  • Your View: No on Amendment 7

    The Missouri Department of Transportation is wanting more money through a three-quarter-cent addition to the sales tax. Consider one example of how it spends your money.

    July 29, 2014

  • Your View: Bad way to get revenue

    I received two fliers through the mail today asking me to vote “yes” on Amendment 7, which would add a three-quarter-cent tax to Missouri’s sales tax to help maintain roads and bridges.

    July 29, 2014

  • Other Views Other Views: Symptom of bad policy

    The Obama administration continues to be surprised and shocked when its policies of good intentions suddenly meet the hard reality of unintended consequences.

    July 28, 2014 1 Photo

  • Rebecca French Smith, guest columnist: Amendment 1: Farmers are 'boots on the ground'

    Take a moment and ask yourself who was the last person in your family to farm.

    July 28, 2014

  • Your View; Makes no sense

    Chess was never my game. It’s too complicated.

    July 28, 2014

  • Your View: Time value of money

     I was shaking my head along with Anson Burlingame (“Much has changed in U.S. over 14 years,” Globe, July 22), then he offered his readers a chance: “Go ahead — take your pick.”

    July 28, 2014

  • Your View: Boiling a frog

    We voters are now being urged to vote on Aug. 5 for Amendment 7 “to fix our roads, highways and bridges.”

    July 28, 2014

  • Our view: 'Yes' on 7

    Opponents of Amendment 7 say this: “Missouri families are already hard pressed to pay their bills during this period of slow economic recovery.”

    July 26, 2014

Local News
Twitter Updates
Follow us on twitter

Given that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that electronic devices and communications are protected from searches and seizure without a warrant, do you think Missouri needs Amendment 9 added to its constitution?

A. Yes.
B. No.
     View Results
NDN Video
US Ready to Slap New Sanctions on Russia Kerry: Not Worried About Israeli Criticism Boater Rescued From Edge of Kentucky Dam Girl Struck by Plane on Florida Beach Dies Rodents Rampant in Gardens Around Louvre House to Vote on Slimmed-down Bill for Border Looming Demand Could Undercut Flight Safety Raw: 2 Shells Hit Fuel Tank at Gaza Power Plant Raw: Massive Explosions From Airstrikes in Gaza Giant Ketchup Bottle Water Tower Up for Sale Easier Nuclear Construction Promises Fall Short Kerry: Humanitarian Cease-fire Efforts Continue Raw: Corruption Trial Begins for Former Va Gov. The Carbon Trap: US Exports Global Warming Traditional African Dishes Teach Healthy Eating