A simple solution to accommodate the softball games would be to gate the properties. When the games are over, the Security service already hired by the Park Department could lock the parks down for the night once the game is over.
Park employees, who start their job before the park officially opens, could then unlock the gates at the beginning of the day.
As for making the park more secure, the police should step up their game by issuing citations when the law is broken. For more serious crimes, like discharging 100 (plus) weapons into the air (which happened at Colman Park about a year ago) take the scofflaws to jail and impound their vehicles.
The Solutions Are Obvious . . . Enforce the laws as written. Other improvements we suggest include:
• Shift the Curfew to ALL city parks to 9:00 o'clock at night.
• Three of Raytown’s finest parks are under siege, and our community deserve better than excuses.
We need the city's help and support to make our parks safe. This starts with listening . . . please give it a try. You will be amazed at the results!
Attempts at direct dialogue with City Hall has yielded little headway. Contact your local Alderman and if you know him personally, the Mayor well. Three of our larger parks, Kritser Park, Kenagy Park and Colman Park, are under siege. Everyone in Raytown has a stake in this fight.
Comments
Whether a mayor or city attorney can legally force aldermen to vote "yes" or "no" and prohibit them from abstaining or walking out involves a mix of state law, municipal code, and common parliamentary law:
1. Forcing a Vote vs. Abstention
* Can you be forced to vote? Generally speaking, parliamentary law dictates that while an elected official has a duty to vote, they cannot be physically or legally compelled to cast a ballot if they choose not to.
* Conflicts of Interest: In fact, Missouri ethics laws and local conflict-of-interest provisions require an alderman to abstain from participating and voting on any matter where they have a direct financial or personal conflict of interest. If a city attorney or mayor tells an alderman they cannot abstain even in the face of a legal conflict of interest, that directive violates basic ethics principles.
* General Abstentions: If an alderman simply wants to abstain because they are undecided or protesting, cities sometimes attempt to pass local ordinances that penalize abstentions or automatically count them as "no" or even "yes" votes. However, a blanket rule completely stripping away the ability to remain silent or abstain is legally dubious unless explicitly backed by the city’s established municipal code or procedural rules.
2. Walking Out and Quorum
* Quorum Rules: Under Missouri fourth-class city laws, the board of aldermen requires a quorum (a majority of the elected members) to conduct official business.
* The "Walkout": Walking out of a meeting is a classic legislative maneuver used to break a quorum so that a vote cannot legally take place. While mayors and city attorneys frequently detest this tactic because it halts city business, elected officials generally have the physical freedom to leave a meeting.
* Legality of Punishing a Walkout: If members walk out to deliberately break a quorum, a city cannot usually "force" them back into the room under police power, but the board may have rules allowing them to censure members or fine them for missing meetings/abandoning their official duties, depending on local ordinances.
3. Role of the Mayor and City Attorney
* The City Attorney: The city attorney acts as a legal advisor. They can advise the board on what state statutes or local ordinances say about voting procedures, a quorum, or conflicts of interest, but they do not have legislative or executive power to issue binding orders commanding elected officials how to vote.
* The Mayor: In a fourth-class city, the mayor presides over the board of aldermen (voting only in the case of a tie, except on specific matters like ordinances for the payment of money). The mayor is a fellow official, not a boss to the aldermen. The mayor cannot unilaterally strip aldermen of their voting discretion or invent rules on the spot that bypass the city's codified procedures.
Summary
If a mayor or city attorney claims there is a blanket, absolute ban on abstaining or leaving the room, they should be asked to point to the specific section of the City Code or Missouri Statute that authorizes this. If no such local ordinance or state law exists granting them that authority, their declaration is an overreach of their administrative and legal roles.
Why have the sign to inform the public, fireworks are illegal in the city parks?
Maybe some people would see the sign that states "no fireworks" and act accordingly. On the other hand, we're here in Raytown. In Raytown, not only will people ignore the signs about "no fireworks permitted," they will double down on the bad behavior by stealing a couple of riding mowers.
A certain amount of bad behavior is to be expected, in part because, well, it happens. Another truth is that bad behavior should be met with appropriate consequences. The people who see a "no fireworks permitted" sign, and ignore it, are not likely to act differently until it's in their own interest to do so. Our current approach- making laws that no one is willing to enforce- isn't working.
So when Tom Homeowner parks a trailer on the side of his house, on grass or gravel, the city will find a way to make him understand that the trailer must be parked on a paved surface. There is an implied threat of a fine, and Tom, being a good citizen, rectifies the problem.
What I have witnessed with the fireworks crowd, is that there is no threat of consequence that can compel the people involved to obey the law. They're apparently unwilling to be good citizens.
Lastly, the rest of us, who DO want to be good citizens, should re-double our efforts to hold city hall accountable.
When examining payouts by Missouri cities specifically tied to a mayor overstepping their bounds, violating constitutional rights, or enacting unlawful municipal ordinances, the legal liability typically lands on the municipality under federal civil rights laws (such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
While large Missouri cities like St. Louis and Kansas City frequently pay multi-million dollar settlements for police misconduct or wrongful imprisonment, those stem primarily from law enforcement or systemic court actions rather than a direct mayoral mandate. However, specific overreach by municipal governments regarding unconstitutional revenue schemes, political retaliation, and free speech violations yields notable benchmarks:
1. The St. Louis County "Debtors' Prison" Class Actions ($3M – $4.7M+ per city)
Following the 2014 Ferguson unrest, multiple small municipalities in the St. Louis area faced federal class-action lawsuits for operating unconstitutional "debtors' prisons"—where mayors, city administrators, and municipal judges conspired to jail citizens for unpaid traffic fines without assessing indigency.
* Florissant, Missouri: Settled for $2.89 million (plus hundreds of thousands in debt forgiveness) after plaintiffs proved the city violated Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by indefinitely jailing people over inability to pay.
* Jennings, Missouri: Settled a similar constitutional rights class-action lawsuit for $4.7 million.
* Maplewood and St. Ann settled similar systemic overreach cases for $3.25 million and $3.125 million, respectively.
2. Direct Mayonal / Executive Overreach & Free Speech ($295,000)
For a direct case involving a sitting mayor and municipal administration actively suppressing constitutional rights (First Amendment retaliation and harassment), a prominent Missouri example is:
* City of Wildwood: Paid $295,000 to settle a federal lawsuit involving Mayor Jim Bowlin and city administrators. The mayor and city officials used local police to harass and threaten a political opponent/council candidate for holding a campaign sign on a public sidewalk, enforcing an unconstitutional blanket ban on public property signs. The settlement was hailed as one of the largest explicit First Amendment municipal settlements in the region.
Historical Landmark Note
On a structural level, Missouri holds a historic place in federal constitutional law regarding municipal overreach: Owen v. City of Independence (1980). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Missouri city could not claim "qualified immunity" when a city manager and city council violated a municipal employee's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. While the case went all the way to the Supreme Court to establish that cities are financially liable for official constitutional violations, it paved the way for modern multi-million dollar accountability when local executives overstep.
Raytown police department is a joke. They remind me of multiple "Barney Fife's" we have. Raytown needs to be combined with either Lee's Summit or Kansas City. City hall has shown time and time again that they can't handle day to day operations of a city with un qualified people running the city. They are here and only here to draw an easy paycheck!
Let's get one thing straight, Joe: people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones—especially when your own foundation is cracked.
For a former Ward 1 alderman who likes tossing around fictional ethics violations, you seem remarkably forgetful about your own track record. Let’s refresh your memory.
1. Residency and the Rule of Law
During your own divorce proceedings, you weren't even living in Ward 1. Let’s call it what it is: it looks immoral, it's completely unethical, and state statutes explicitly say it's not allowed. Before you start pointing fingers at others, maybe check where your own mail was landing.
2. The Walmart Deal and Masterclass Negotiations
You want to complain about our streets not getting repaired? Let’s talk about your legacy vote for the Walmart deal—the very deal that's hurting all of us and draining the funds needed for basic infrastructure.
And let’s talk about your "negotiating skills." When you interviewed with a local television station a few years ago, you flat-out admitted that negotiations with the school district were "very hard" and "very demanding."
* Any person with half an education knows that when the other side demands unreasonable and unacceptable things, you walk away.
* Instead, you caved and pointed the finger everywhere except at the actual greed across the table.
3. Blind Loyalty to the Police and ADA Failures
You've been posting on Facebook claiming the police are successfully cracking down on illegal handicap parking. Well, Joe, Facebook isn't always the gospel, but when you post that things are "getting better" and local residents universally call you out, reality speaks for itself.
As a former alderman, your bias toward the police department is glaringly obvious. You can't control your urge to praise city staff at every turn, ignoring the actual evidence on the ground.
* The true measure of success isn't your rose-colored glasses; it's the lack of tickets being issued.
* Have you opened your eyes lately to the number of businesses in Raytown missing properly marked ADA handicap parking spaces?
If your eyesight isn't failing you as one of your disabilities, maybe you should start holding local staff accountable for enforcement instead of giving them a free pass like you used to from the board dais.