USE THIS LINK TO Comment AND VIEW COMMENTS

BY PAUL LIVIUS

   Paul's Rant!

            Public Speakers at Aldermen meetings

            should be allowed to speak without interruption

The Second Agenda item at Raytown Board of Aldermen meetings is named “Public Comments”. This is a time when members of the public may address the Board of Aldermen about Raytown governmental concerns.

Click on the following link to view what two private citizens had to say at the last Board of Aldermen meeting during Public Comments. The speakers were Mr. Jim DeLong and Mr. Morris Melloy. Both are Raytown citizens speaking on matters of public interest during Public Comments.

Use the following link to hear what Mr. DeLong and Mr. Melloy had to say during Public Comments . . .  

USE THIS LINK  Public Comments by Jim DeLong and Morris Melloy

Jim DeLong is a local businessowner, and a certified Lead Carpenter who has runs his business in the Kansas City area for over 50 years.

Jim and his wife have lived in Raytown for 47 years. They raised their son and sent him to Raytown Schools. Jim was a Boy Scout leader for Troop 145 in Raytown. Both are still active in Boy Scout area programs.

Jim’s wife was awarded the prestigious “Silver Beaver Award” for her role as the Heart of America Council Day Camp Director.

Jim and his wife were co-directors of there Church's High School Missouri Mission Trips for ten years.

I watched the meeting on my television. Here is what I saw transpire.

At about 2.5 minutes into the five minutes allotted Mr. DeLong for his presentation to the Board of Aldermen, the Mayor repeatedly attempted to interrupt him.

The Mayor's conduct was contrary to the rules set up for Public Comments when a guest speaker is peaking. Even worse, his conduct was extremely rude.

It is a tactic often seen in public debates. By interrupting someone who is speaking you break their train of thought.

A public speaker at a Raytown Board of Aldermen is allotted only five minutes speak. Each time the Mayor interrupted Mr. DeLong or pounded his gavel he was literally stealing Mr. DeLong’s speaking time.

It was clear to me the Mayor was attempting to disrupt Delong’s train of thought as well. Unless you are used to being heckled when you speak, it can be very difficult to continue giving a smooth delivery on your message.

The Mayor's attempt did not work. 

Mr. DeLong's message was clear and precise.

Most interesting was the Mayor’s complaint that DeLong should take this up with the Police Department. What most readers are not aware of is that Chief of Police Jim Kuehl was in the audience when DeLong was speaking.

So, in fact, Mr. DeLong was bringing his message to the Chief of Police.

Taking it to the Board of Aldermen during a business meeting of the Board was and still is the proper way to bring a grievance to the public’s attention.

The point is the Public Forum is for the people to have their say. Mr. DeLong did not break any rules of decorum.

From Mr. DeLong's point of view, the Mayor's tactics were that of a bully.

Morris Melloy was the third speaker during Public Comments. He pointed out to the Mayor the following:

“Mr. Mayor you should not be interrupting Citizens when they are using their five minutes. They do not interrupt you. You should show the same courtesy to them.”

Melloy continued, “Your rude and inconsiderate practice of interrupting Public Speakers is the reason so few people out of a population of nearly 30,000 rarely come to City Hall to speak their mind. I ask you to be a gentleman and hear what Public Guests have to say without interruption.”

Go back and check out the video. You will find that at this point the Mayor began interrupting Mr. Melloy . . . Just as he did when he interrupted Mr. DeLong.

USE THIS LINK TO Comment AND VIEW COMMENTS 

A NOTE FROM ALDERMAN GREG WALTERS

This week’s Raytown Report is re-publishing a story originally published on September 2^nd 2025 in a web-based newsletter serving the Kansas City metropolitan area. The story is re-published here in entirely unedited version.

Why a Raytown alderman was removed from office during a private meeting with the mayor

Latrice Thomas

Latrice Thomas was removed from her position on the Raytown Board of Aldermen after an investigation into her taxes. Two months later, the city still has not publicly addressed her removal.

by Josh Merchant, Local government reporter josh@thebeacon.media

Latrice Thomas won her election to the Board of Aldermen in April. She attended six meetings and voted in five before she was removed from office during a one-on-one meeting with the mayor.

A former alderman in Raytown believes that she was improperly removed from office in June during a private meeting with Mayor Mike McDonough.

Latrice Thomas had been elected on April 8 to represent the northernmost neighborhoods in Raytown on the Board of Aldermen — Raytown’s equivalent to a city council. 

She works as a medical assistant at KU Medical Center and founded a nonprofit that provides sexual health education for young people.

Thomas won her election narrowly — by just five votes — and unseated incumbent Ryan Myers, who had held that position for eight years.

“I was asleep, and my daughter must have literally kicked the door in and said, ‘Mama, you won!’” she said. “I’m telling you, the text messages were coming in, coming in, coming in — ‘Congratulations, you did it, girl!’”

Thomas was sworn in on April 22 and began attending and voting at biweekly meetings. She traveled to a training conference for elected officials in mid-June, where she networked with other leaders from across the state.

But her victory came crashing down just two weeks after she got home. She got a call from McDonough on June 26 asking her to meet with him in his office.

McDonough showed her a letter from the Missouri Department of Revenue stating that she did not meet statutory requirements to be a candidate after an investigation found that she had been delinquent on her taxes at the time of her election.

The mayor then showed her another letter, signed by himself and the city clerk, saying that effective immediately, she was not qualified to serve as an alderman in Raytown.

Since then, Raytown has removed her name from the city’s list of elected officials on its website but has not acknowledged her removal in any press releases or on the city’s Facebook page.

Raytown Alderman Greg Walters said he does not remember Thomas’ removal ever being addressed at a public meeting of the Board of Aldermen.

In response to an interview request from The Beacon, City Clerk Teresa Henry shared the letter from the Department of Revenue that said Thomas did not meet requirements for candidacy and the Raytown letter addressed to Thomas that said she would be removed from office. The city declined to comment further. 

Thomas believes she should never have been removed. She says that she’s not delinquent on her taxes and that she was removed without due process.

“I want to return to my seat that I rightfully won,” she said. “It was a unilateral misuse of power. It was wrongful, it was incorrect, it was out of order.”

Why was Latrice Thomas
removed from office?

When someone files paperwork in Missouri to become a candidate for office, one of the documents they’re required to submit is an affidavit which says that, to the candidate’s knowledge, they are not delinquent on any taxes. 

If the Department of Revenue learns that a candidate is tax delinquent, it sends a letter to the candidate notifying them that they have 30 days to resolve the issues. If they don’t, the department notifies the city or election board to say the candidate doesn’t meet the tax requirements.

From that point, the city or election board disqualifies the candidate and bars them from re-filing for an entire election cycle.

That’s almost what happened to Thomas. Except in her case, the Department of Revenue received the complaint on April 23 — the day after she was sworn in as an alderman.

According to a letter the city of Raytown shared with The Beacon, the department sent her a letter at that time, but she didn’t resolve her tax delinquency.

Thomas said she didn’t get the letter. But as soon as she learned of the issue during her meeting with the mayor, she called the Department of Revenue.

The department ran her Social Security number and didn’t see any outstanding taxes, she said. But when they ran her husband’s information, they found that he had some state income taxes that were in dispute. 

A dispute is when the taxpayer and the tax collector disagree on how much money is actually owed. Disputed taxes are not considered a tax delinquency when filing for candidacy.

JoDonn Chaney, a spokesman for the Missouri Department of Revenue, confirmed that the department found in its investigation that Thomas was not compliant with the requirements under the Missouri statute.

Due to the private nature of tax records, he could not share any other information about why the department determined Thomas to be delinquent or whether her husband’s taxes were in dispute, but he said in an email that the department was not responsible for any decision to remove her from office.

“The department regularly receives compliance complaints regarding candidacy,” he wrote. “The department reviews these complaints, but we are not an election authority, and therefore cannot make determination regarding eligibility. In this specific case, that would be a matter to be determined by the city, according to state statute.”

Chaney also could not say who submitted the initial complaint to the department.

Thomas believes she
was removed improperly

It’s not uncommon for someone’s candidacy to be challenged because of an alleged tax delinquency. But in this case, the Department of Revenue did not receive the complaint until after the winner was sworn in to office.

Brad Constance, a lawyer who represents the Jackson County Election Board, did not comment on this specific case. But he said that in the past, a candidate being disqualified from an election has resulted in their removal from office.

In 2011, a man named Herschel Young was elected to be Cass County presiding commissioner. It was later discovered after he was sworn in that he had pleaded guilty to a felony nearly 20 years prior — which would have disqualified him as a candidate.

The Missouri Supreme Court, in its opinion, said that “one of the requisites to being qualified to hold office is that the person seeking office be a valid candidate and comply with statutory provisions regarding candidacy.”

In that case, Young was removed when the prosecuting attorney filed a petition to oust him.

But there is not any court filing associated with Thomas’ removal. The mayor sent her a letter declaring her unqualified, and Thomas has been absent from the dais since then.

Thomas believes that the mayor can’t remove her unilaterally. She is no longer a candidate, she said, and she thinks it’s wrong for the mayor to remove her from office without hearing out the facts of her case.

“I’m serving in my capacity,” she said. “Sworn in, signed, sealed and delivered … At this point, I’m a representative, liaison, all of that for Ward III constituents. So I want to be treated as such. I want that due process of doing it the correct way.”

If Thomas isn’t eligible to hold office, it’s unclear whether McDonough removed her in a valid way or whether it should have happened through an impeachment process, a petition filed by the Jackson County prosecuting attorney or another means.

The process of potentially replacing Thomas is outlined in another Missouri statute. If a position on the Board of Aldermen becomes vacant, the mayor nominates a replacement at a special meeting, who then must be confirmed by a majority vote of the board. This has not happened yet.

The Beacon asked Henry, the Raytown city clerk, whether that law would guarantee Thomas an impeachment hearing, whether the Board of Aldermen intended to replace her and whether the city knows who submitted the initial complaint to the Department of Revenue.

“At this time, the matter has been referred to the Attorney General’s Office,” she wrote in response. “We have no further comment.”

The attorney general’s office did not respond to a list of questions by email.

Raytown appears not to have addressed the removal of an elected official in any press release or statement to the public over the past two months. Henry also declined to say whether that was true.

Thomas said her removal has a negative impact not only on her, but also the people who voted for her.

“It’s hard enough for people to get out and vote,” Thomas said.

“We’re already out begging people to vote … It’s a huge letdown, a huge disappointment. And I hated for that to be confirmation for why they don’t vote."

 USE THIS LINK TO Comment AND VIEW RESULTS