raytownonline_circle

Stilley Law Donated to Rice Tremonti Home

Raytown current weather conditions


Click for Forecast

Clark’s Appliances donated to REAP


DAILY CARTOON click to enlarge
ANDERTOONS.COM DAILY CARTOONS
=

Click on +1 button to tell Google you like RaytownOnline

Subscribe to RaytownOnline.com via Email

Enter your email address to receive emails of the latest local news articles on RaytownOnline.com.


Raytown Service Specialist donated to REAP





Kendra donated to Shepherd’s Center

raytownonline_circle

Ads for Charity

Election Results for 2015 for the City of Raytown

Mayor Total Percent
MICHAEL MCDONOUGH* 2002 57.78%
PAT ERTZ 1513 42.91%
 Alderman Ward 1
 KAREN BLACK*   244   37.77%
 GREG WALTERS  225  34.83%
 JOE CREAMER   176  27.24%
 Alderman Ward 2
 JIM AZIERE*   447  52.90%
  STEVE GUENTHER   276  32.66%
  CHRIS RATHBONE  121  14.32%
 Alderman Ward 3
 MARK MOORE*   277  46.40%
 RYAN MYERS  264  44.22%
 STERLING L. BROWN   54   9.05%
 Alderman Ward 4
 STEVE MEYERS*   411  52.36%
  MARY JANE VAN BUSKIRK  373   47.52%
 Alderman Ward 5
 ERIC TEEMAN*  353   58.35%
 BARRY PARK  248  40.99%
 The Charter
 NO*   1903  55.32%
YES  1537  44.68%

 

 

City Election Endorsements and a copy of the proposed Charter

Ward 1 Joe Creamer

Ward 2 Jim Aziere

Ward 3 Ryan Myers

Ward 4 & 5  No Endorsement

The Charter Vote NO

This is the worst of the last three charters presented to the voters of Raytown.  The previous charter was flawed with conflict and inconsistencies within it. The Charter before that attempted too many changes and was probably rejected by voters unwilling to make that great a leap into the unknown.

The proposed Charter would take us from a weak Mayor to a ceremonial Mayor.  The Mayors power would be to Chair the Board meeting and cut ribbons.

It would transfer power from the Parks Board into the hands of the Alderman and it would set the qualification requirements for Police Chief to vague standards that very well could result in litigation between candidates over whether those standards are met.  All decisions could be reviewed by the Board of Aldermen if just 3 Aldermen agree. Hiring and salary of the Parks Director us a decision made by the Aldermen

The Parks and Recreation Director may be removed from office by a majority vote of the Board of Aldermen and shall serve at their pleasure.

We would have a Parks Director with two masters, but one that can fire him.  Part of the reasoning for having an independant Parks Board with money we voted to have them use for the Parks alone, was to separate it from politics.  If the Aldermen can hire, fire and set the salary of the Parks Director, then there is no separation from politics.

Here is a small sample of from the section on Chief of Police that runs from page 12 to page 16.

Candidates for the Chief of Police shall also possess:

1) considerable knowledge of the principles of modern police administration and police methods;

2) considerable knowledge of the principles and accepted good practices and procedures as applied to patrol, traffic control, criminal investigation, and crime prevention;

What constitutes considerable knowledge and who determines if a candidate possesses that knowledge? Do they get to take a test? Does a Police Chief actually have to be able to wear every hat in the department, to oversee the department? Is there someone in the Police Department that meets these qualifications and are these qualifications tailored to insure he runs unopposed?

While the City Administrator must live in the City, the Municipal Judge is not required to live in Raytown and can actually serve as a Judge for other communities.

c) Qualifications for Office; Outside Employment. The Municipal Judge shall possess and maintain the following qualifications before and after taking office:

i. Must be a licensed attorney, qualified to practice law within the State of Missouri, and shall have been engaged in active practice of law in the State of Missouri for at least three (3) years immediately preceding election.

ii. Need not reside within the City.

iii. Must be a resident of the State of Missouri and have resided in the State for one (1) year immediately preceding election.

iv. May serve as Municipal Judge for any other municipality.

 

Click Below to download a complete copy of the Proposed City Charter

CityOfRaytownCharter

Raytown Election 2015 – Just Say No – Follow the Money (part 3)

The opposition to the Charter group has filed with the Jackson County Election Board under the name Committee for Professional Government. The named treasurer is Shirley Wittman. Under itemized expenditures is $891.68 for yard signs. Contributions names one donor giving $500 and $799 in donations of under $100. The total comes to $1299.00.

Click HERE to download a PDF of the filed document.

Raytown Election 2015 – Politics in Ski Masks – Follow the Money (part 2)

The Charter is getting support in the form of Signs and post cards from a group called “Raytown Community Alliance.” Inquires to the Jackson County Election Board resulted in a referral to the Missouri Ethics Commission. The Commission website did yield some information.

Address 10014 E 63rd St.  Raytown, Mo. 64133 Phone (816) 225-xxxx (the address is also the address of former Mayor Sue Franks insurance company and the phone number that I did not fully list is Ms. Frank’s cell phone)

The only other information on the Ethics Commission’s web site is a single non-committee expenditure report that shows $972.00 for yard signs and $1226.18 for a mailer. There was nothing about where the money came from. A recent article in the Raytown Eagle seemed to indicate that this group claimed to not be a campaign committee and therefore was not required to file disclosure reports. Well the group did file an expenditure report, they just did not file a contributor report.  http://mec.mo.gov/Scanned/PDF/2015/111374.pdf

The bottom line is that it does not matter if a group can legally hide where their money comes from, if they hide it, they are not to be trusted. They are like a politician coming to your door wearing a ski mask.

Next who is behind the NO-Charter campaign

Consultant faults charter & denies endorsement

This article originally ran in the Raytown Times and is reprinted here with their permission


The proposed City Charter has several policy issues that could become problematic for the city. particularly in the working relationships between the Mayor, Board of Aldermen and the City Administrator, Gary Markenson, former executive director of the Missouri Municipal League and now a consultant to cities. said yesterday (Tuesday, March 3 1).

At the Charter Commission’s request, Markenson met with the commissioners early on as they sought advice on charter preparation. After the draft was printed, Commission Chairman Sieve Guenther provided Markenson a copy of the charter and asked him to review it and provide an endorsement. Markenson said he could not endorse it and pointed out to Guenther several key problems.

The Charter has essentially gutted the position of Mayor, stripping the office of all administrative duties and leaving the mayor to handle ceremonial duties, Markenson noted. It also presents a wall between the Mayor and the City Administrator, placing more power with the Board of Aldermen.

The Charter states: ‘The Mayor shall be recognized as head of the City government for all legal and ceremonial purposes;  shall have no administrative duties beyond serving as Board of Aldermen Chairman.”

The Charter also provides for an elected Municipal Judge. but states that the judge, “Need not reside within the City.”

” I don ‘I know of any city in this state that allows an elected official to live outside the city.” Markenson said. ” It seems inconsistent to require the City Administrator to live within the city when an elected judge is not required to.”

Markenson noted that the Charter specifies that “the Park Board may make and adopt such bylaws, rules, and regulations for the guidance and for the operation of the parks. Such rules shall be  adopted into the City code or ordinances upon approval by the Board of Aldermen.”

“Does that mean the city has to rule on every little rule and regulation the Park Board comes up with?” he asked rhetorically.  “It seems that could cause major conflict between the Park
Board and Aldermen. It paves the way for conflict.”

Markenson pointed out several other faults. but praised the Charter Commissioners for their diligence in preparing the document. “They worked really hard,” he said.

 


That concludes the Raytown Times article.  Below is video of Markenson’s presentation at the second Charter Commission meeting.

Parks Board meeting turns heated

The Raytown Parks and Recreation Board meeting was less than calm on Monday night. Steve Guenther and Jason Greene attended the meeting to discuss the proposed Charter for Raytown.  Parks Board members were not happy to find out that under the proposed Charter, they would no longer have the same control over hiring, salaries, and facilities use.  Judge Michael Hannah is reported to have ask Jason Greene, what did we ever do to make them write a charter like this.  Alderman Greene did not or was not able to answer that question.

From Alderman Aziere who was at the meeting…

I attended the Raytown Park Board Meeting last night because they had questions about the proposed charter and the section on the Park Department.  They did not understand why the Park Board had not been personally invited to the meetings when changes in the Park Department were being discussed.

Discussions involving the Park Department requires that the Board of Alderman inform the Park Director.  The Charter Commission did not do that.

Jason Green wrote the section on the Park Department. He was questioned why the Park Department was not informed or invited.  literally, every member of the Park Board were angered when they were told that it was their job to follow the proceedings of the Commission.

The provision allowing the Alderman to override Park Board Decisions incited more anger.  They did not understand what the Park Board had done so badly to cause the commissioners to strip them of their power to run the Park and Recreation Department.

There are two provisions in the Charter outside the section on Park Department that seal control of that department under the power of the Board of Alderman.  I am planning to explain that to the Board of Alderman tonight early in the evening.

Letter to the Editor from former Mayor Sue Frank

I appreciated Bob Phillips comments in the February 4th, Raytown Times about the proposed Charter. I especially appreciate that Bob took the time to read the document. Having quite a bit of experience with previous Charters I have read the proposed Charter several times and have been to a couple of meetings to ask questions. I encourage everyone to read it and attend the upcoming meetings on February 24th and March 24th. I understand that printing is in the works but in the meantime it can be read at Raytowncharter.com. Go to documents.

Bob states, he “does not believe the City Administrator should be required to live in the city. Period.” It seems the residency requirement is the most divisive issue of this Charter. Of the 39 Charter cities in the State, the commission studied 37.  Of those 37 studied, 36 required City Administrator residencies. There is still an ordinance on the books in Raytown that requires a City Administrator to live here, even though this administration has chosen to ignore it. Had the Board of Aldermen simply repealed the residency ordinance, I doubt we would be having this discussion. The three prior administrators were required to live here; no one’s feathers got ruffled then.  Maybe residency requirements aren’t reasonable for Raytown anymore, but the fact remains an ordinance –our law-requires it.  Many people feel just as strongly that a City Administrator should have to live with the consequences of their direction, pay their taxes and spend their income at local businesses within the town that employs them. But to the Commission’s credit, this Charter is not targeting individuals, all contracts the city has with employees will remain in force.  If the Charter passes it will not affect the current City Administrator. Residency would only apply to future City Administrators.

Bob also said that he disagrees with electing a police chief. There have been cases where an appointed police chief is directed to harass the political adversaries of elected officials, and have been fired for not doing so. Like the Judge, maybe the elected police chief should not have to be a resident, but again, the commission chose to write the Charter in a way that mirrors our current ordinance, and how our City is currently doing business and I think that’s proper. This gives us all common ground and a common starting point from which to discuss and/or vote on these types of changes in the future.

In response to Bob’s concerns about the percentages for Initiative, Referendum and Recall being too low, I know the Commission spent many hours of discussion about these. They studied what other cities required. The goal was to make them high enough that it could not become a nuisance or waste people’s time and tax dollars with elections. But at the same time, the percentages needed to be obtainable if the citizens felt so strongly about an issue they wanted change.  I understand that Initiative and Referendum would require about 1400 registered voter signatures. Recall for a Ward would require around 600 from the Ward, and for a city-wide position, about 3000.  For anyone that has tried to collect petition signatures, that’s a lot of work. To quote a friend, “Why would any American citizen argue against a method to redress grievances with their government?” That’s not to say you are un-American if you oppose the charter, but the democratic process of discussion and voting is our American way.  Should the percentages turn out to be too low, and nonsense elections start, I have every faith that the people of Raytown will raise the percentages in the future.

I do agree with Bob about compromise. I think it would be impossible to write a charter that everyone would agree with 100 percent. If I were writing this charter by myself, there would be minor changes I would make, but there is nothing in this Charter that I can’t live with.  Home Rule gives us all an opportunity for discussion and gives citizens a voice in shaping their government. It provides a balance of authority over the direction for the future of our city that we don’t currently have. A charter is a living document. To quote Lee Gray, “change should occur by evolution, not revolution.” As Bob states, the Raytown Charter Commission did a good job, I agree.  I hope we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Sue Frank former mayor

Charter Commission Education Committee to meet

A meeting of the  will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 27 at the City Hall.

They will be discussing the ways to educating the public and the avenues that will be used to do so.

The Charter Commission Public Comment Session

On Jan. 9th at City Hall, the Raytown Charter Commission held the first of two scheduled sessions focused on public comment.  The layout had the podium facing the Commission and well in front of the audience. In order to video record a better view than the back of the person commenting, the camera was placed in a location and left recording a fix picture of the podium for the entire meeting. It should be noted that The editor of RaytownOnline.com pacticipated in the public comments.


 

Editorial Comment

One of the benefits of owning a news website is that you get the last word. I am taking advantage of that benefit to get the last word. A large portion (some of which is listed below) of the qualifications for Chief of Police are vague.  Qualifications for any office should be precise and not open to debate on what meets the requirement. The term “considerable knowledge” is very imprecise.  The attorney that the Commission hired made the point that if lawsuits arouse over whether someone met these vague qualifications, it would not be the city that would be getting sued, and that the suits would likely fail. That is likely correct, but it does not cover all undesirable consequences and side effects of the vagueness, possible legal liabilities that this leaves an elected official open to, and possible costs bother financial and in the potential public fights that may ensue. 

The only benefit to this potential for a public fight in the courts and in the campaigns, would be that it could lead to sensational news copy for the media. I am willing to forgo that benefit. I may report controversy and scandal, but prefer not to encourage it. 


 

vi. Candidates for the Chief of Police shall also possess:

1) considerable knowledge of the principles of modern police
administration and police methods;
2) considerable knowledge of the principles and accepted good practices
and procedures as applied to patrol, traffic control, criminal investigation, and
crime prevention;
3) knowledge of the standards by which the quality of police service is
evaluated and the use of police records and their application to police
administration;
4) knowledge of the types and uses of the weapons, automotive
equipment, and the equipment used for communications, personal safety, and
digital information management in modern police work;
5) knowledge of the functions of federal, state, and local jurisdictions and
authorities as they relate to police work; and
6) ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with other
city officials, state, county, and federal authorities, civic leaders, and the general public.

Raytown Charter Commission Updates

There will be a meeting for public input at 6:30 pm in Raytown City Hall on 1/9/2015 (this Friday).

The latest version from the Commission Website available at this time.

Table of Contents

Body of the Charter

 

Charter Commission Meeting on 11/24/2014

This was an interesting meeting from start to finish.  The Charter Commission has hired a lawyer (Allen Garner) and a major part of the meeting involved advise from Mr. Garner and his response to questions from the Commission.

Members present:  Janet Emerson, Lisa Emerson, Steve Guenther, Sandra Hartwell, Charlotte Melson, Mark Moore, Ted Bowman and Greg Walters.

Members absent:  Jim Aziere, , Susan Dolan, Jason Greene, Michael McDonough, and Mary Jane Van Buskirk.

Recording the meeting was more than the usual challenge. The meeting was held in the small adjoining room to the main chamber, due to remodeling. It was not possible to get the entire commission in the frame from one camera. There was not a break where batteries could be changed on the cameras, so the final few minutes were recorded with a phone camera.

The speaker after Alderman Ertz, was Michael Downing, editor/owner of RaytownOnline.com.

Minutes of the last Raytown Charter Commission meeting

Election duties precluded RaytownOnline.com taping the last charter meeting. Click HERE for the unapproved minutes of that meeting as a PDF file.  approval by the Commission will take place at the Commissions next meeting.

 

Raytown Charter Commission meeting #14

The subject of this meeting was a revisit of the issues of the last meeting… recall, referendum, and initiative.  The required numbers of signatures was lowered by lowering the percentage of registered voters required for placement on the ballot. Recall was lowered from 30% of registered voters to 17.5%. Referendum and initiative were both lowered to 8%.

Raytown Charter Commission meets tonight at City Hall

MEETING NOTICE
RAYTOWN CHARTER COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27TH, 2014 AT 6:30 P.M.
IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
10000 E. 59TH ST., RAYTOWN, MO 64133

Agenda

I. Call to order
II. Roll call.
III. Public comments.
IV. Officer reports.
a. Chair.
b. Secretary.
c. Treasurer.
V. Old business.
a. Discussion of attorney documents.
b. Misc.
VI. New business.
a. Discussion of proposed articles 10.1, 10.4, 10.6, 10.7, and others.

Adjourn

Raytown Charter Commission Meeting #13

The Raytown Charter Commission has decided to increase the frequency of the meeting schedule. The purpose of having more meetings is to insure completion in time to place the proposed charter on the ballot on schedule. This has created a conflict with availability of Raytown City Hall.  The Charter Commission will relocate to other locations, when City Hall is not available.  This meeting was held at the Raytown Fire District Station #1.

The main areas addressed at this meeting were recall, referendum, and initiative.  These are all areas that are new to Raytown. They are available to charter cities, but not to 4th class cities (Raytown’s current designation).

Raytown Charter Commission time and location change

Charter Commission meeting today, Monday, at the Fire station, at 6:15PM as opposed to the normal 6:30.

Raytown Charter Commission meeting #10

The Raytown Charter Commission met on Monday, Sept. 9th.  The most significant portion was changes to the position of Police Chief.  That portion is in part two of the video, which starts right after a short break in the meeting.

Part 1

Part 2

The following is from the minutes of the meeting. Minutes that will not be reviewed and approved until next meeting. This text pertains to the requirements in the charter for the office of Chief of Police.


 

Ted Bowman reads 6.1a.  Janet Emerson motions to approve.  Michael McDonough
seconds.  The motion passes 9?3.  Those in favor are Ted Bowman, Susan Dolan, Janet
Emerson, Lisa Emerson, Jason Greene, Steve Guenther, Sandra Hartwell, Michael
McDonough, and Mark Moore; those against are Jim Aziere, Charlotte Melson, and
Mary Jane Van Buskirk.
6.1 Eligibility, Election and Term
a) Eligibility for Office.
i. Candidates for Chief of Police shall have established
primary residency in the City for at least two (2) years immediately preceding the election. The Chief of Police shall be
a qualified voter of the City and shall remain a primary resident
and qualified voter of the City during the entirety of their
term.
ii. No person shall be elected or appointed to the office of
Chief of Police who is not a citizen of the United States or who
is in arrears for any unpaid taxes or who is guilty of forfeiture
or defalcation during the entirety of their term.
iii. No person shall be elected Chief of Police who has been
convicted of any felony in any State, convicted of any crime of
moral turpitude in any court within the United States, or who has
been denied a license as a police officer by any State’s board or
commission of police officer standards or training.
iv. No person shall be elected Chief of Police who is unable to
meet the licensing requirements for a peace officer of a county
of the first classification as set forth in Missouri Revised
Statutes.
v. Candidates for the Chief of Police shall possess a bachelors,
or higher, degree from an accredited college or university in a
field reasonably related to public administration or criminal
justice; or demonstrate an equivalent combination of training and
experience which provides comparable knowledge, abilities, and
skills.
vi. Candidates for the Chief of Police shall also possess:
1. Considerable knowledge of the principles of modern police
administration and police methods;
2. Considerable knowledge of the principles and accepted good
practices and procedures as applied to patrol, traffic control,
criminal investigation, and crime prevention;
3. Knowledge of the standards by which the quality of police
service is evaluated and the use of police records and their
application to police administration;
4. Knowledge of the types and uses of the weapons, automotive
equipment, and the equipment used for communications, personal
safety, and digital information management in modern police work;
5. Knowledge of the functions of federal, state, and local
jurisdictions and authorities as they relate to police work; and
6. An ability to establish and maintain effective working
relationships with other city officials, state, county, and
federal authorities, civic leaders, and the general public.
vii. The Chief of Police shall maintain these conditions of
eligibility throughout their term of office or shall forfeit that
office.
• Ted Bowman reads 6.1b and c.  Janet Emerson motions to approve.  Jim Aziere seconds.
The motion passes 11?1.  Those in favor are Jim Aziere, Ted Bowman, Susan Dolan, Janet
Emerson, Lisa Emerson, Jason Greene, Steve Guenther, Sandra Hartwell, Michael
McDonough, Charlotte Melson, and Mark Moore; against is Mary Jane Van Buskirk.
b) Training Requirements i. Any person who is elected to their first term as Chief of
Police shall, within six months of such election cause to be
filed with the City Clerk proof that they have successfully
completed the certification requirements pursuant to Missouri
Revised Statutes. If the newly elected Chief of Police is unable
to complete the appropriate training program as required by
Missouri Revised Statutes within six months due to such course of
training not being available, an extension may be granted until
such a course becomes available.
ii. The Chief of Police will maintain a current peace officer
license as is required of any Missouri peace officer of a county
of the first classification including all of the required
continuing education.
c) Election and Term. At a regular municipal election, two
(2) years following the election of the Mayor, the Chief of
Police shall be elected by the qualified voters of the City at
large to serve a four (4) year term (as provided in Article …

Raytown Charter Commission Meeting #9

Residency requirements for the city manager was one of the topics covered in this meeting.

The 8th Meeting of the Raytown Charter Commission

The 8th meeting of the Charter Commission proceeded at a better pace than previous meetings.  One of the few delays was the debate over the use of the word “right” as it pertained to what an alderman could do.  Lisa Emerson prefered the word ‘”privilege.”   Both terms seem out-of-place in a document defining our city government structure.  The words power and duty are better fitted to defining the role of elected officials.

The following videos are best viewed full screen in 720 mode.

Charter Commission Meeting Tonight

The Raytown Charter Commission will meet at City Hall at 6:3 pm. The meetings are open to the public.

RAYTOWN CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING #7 PART 2 OF 2

Raytown Charter Commission Meeting #7 Part 1 of 2

The Raytown Charter Commission’s 5th Meeting

The actual progress made in the 5th Charter Commission meeting was hard to determine.  Once the minutes have been published, I will review them along with the video and publish a more objective summary.  In the meantime, what follows is my editorial point of view …

Editorial content:

The 5th meeting wasted 2 hours of the 2.5-hour session talking about adding wording like “sovereign” and “right to bear arms” in the draft charter’s definition of the rights of the people. Many items that a subset of the commission wanted included are not bad ideas in principle, but have no place in a city charter.  I may like blue cheese, but it does not belong in my iced tea. These subjects are the appropriate domain of the Federal and State government; nothing the Charter Commission adds to the charter can supercede State or Federal law.   

The commission should be much further along, because so much time has been wasted on irrelevant and/or ineffective discussion. The first sections of the charter could have been copied from The Missouri Municipal League’s model charter with the only change being the insertion of the name Raytown in the appropriate spots. More significant sections are yet to be addressed that DO need careful attention, and that will need to be tailored specifically to Raytown.  Time wasted debating “rights” that are not in the domain of what a city government controls would be better spent addressing the “rights” we do NOT have and COULD have with a charter (petition, recall, and referendum). My concern is that the waters will get muddied with controversial issues that are dear to our Libertarian friends, but that would keep the charter from being passed by the majority of the voters.  

Other concerns…

1. A charter is not a constitution. There are similarities, and a charter is often described as a city’s constitution; however, a charter is not a constitution–just as a cat is not a tiger. They are similar, but not equal. 

2. Preceding a position or pronouncement by words like “technically,” or “legally” without factual citation in  support does not give more weight to a position in the mind of a listener with a discerning ear. 

3. Complaints about the delay in posting the Board of Aldermen meeting video on YouTube does not fall in the realm of the Charter Commission charge. 

4.  The delay in putting the previous Charter Commission video on the public channel was the fault of  RaytownOnline, not the fault of any city employee.   Other matters occupied my time and I did not get a DVD to the city as quickly as I have in the past.

 

End of Editorial Content


 

Raytown Charter Commission Agenda for meeting tonight

MEETING NOTICE
RAYTOWN CHARTER COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 23RD, 2014 AT 6:30 P.M.
IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
10000 E. 59TH ST., RAYTOWN, MO 64133

Agenda
I.     Call to order.
II.   Roll call.
III. Public comments.
IV.  Officer reports.
a. Chair. Notify the people about the Engage Raytown website.
b. Secretary.
c. Treasurer.
V.   Old business.
a. Misc.
b. Discussion about the preämble and articles 1, 2, and 3.

VI.  New business.
a. Discussion of proposed articles 3 and 4.
Adjourn

The Raytown Charter Commission’s 4th Meeting

The Charter Commission met at 6:30 PM, Monday, June 9th for the 4th time. Commissioner Ted Bowman was the only member absent. Progress was limited, with a good bit of debate on details on the start of the Charter that usually are not contentious. There was lively debate on a couple of issues, term limits and in-eligibility for office due to unpaid taxes.

The debate on eligibility centered on two aspects, what is to be considered a tax and whether there should be any sort of grace period.  Could an unpaid parking ticket result in the removal of an alderman,  would not paying all property tax on the due date result in the removal of an alderman. Do fines incurred by family members driving an automobile registered or jointly registered to an alderman result in their removal if unpaid on the due date.

The most lively debate was again on term limits. Leading the move to add term limits was Charter member Greg Walters. The commission was split on this issue, with a 7 to 5 advantage on the anti-term limits side.   After all Commissioners spoke to the issue, Walters offered an alternative to put the issue on the ballot as a pull-out. This means that the voters would vote on the charter and vote on whether term limits were part of the charter separately.

The meeting lasted almost 3 hours, with a short break after about an hour and forty minutes.  Below are the video recording made by RaytownOnline.com of both segments of the meeting.