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.
With knowing they had to move $130,000 for legal fees this year because the mayor can't follow the state law.
And with the knowledge of the number of constitutional violations and the known amount of around $250,000 per valation as a good average amount for legal fees and payout for the violation. Shouldn't the city set a pout, another 2 to 3 million. I mean, the mayor keeps talking about transparency but keeps violating people's constitutional rights. It would only be fitting that the city sets aside funds to cover is ongoing disgraceful behavior.
Fees seem to be getting in the way. That's what happens when you elect a former cop. We all have to pay.
What is the city trying to hide!
I keep hearing the board of aldermen telling us we have professional employees working at city hall. This doesn't seem like professional behavior.
Speaking of lack of professionalism? Why couldn't I make my sewer payment recently. The city has been very quiet about why and what happened. Once again, a lack of transparency, it's like they're trying to hide something something they did. That's gonna cost us millions, and they don't want us to know.
I guess some people believe the law just doesn't pertain to them.
When looking specifically at elected governing bodies (such as city councils, county boards, or school boards) committing direct First Amendment violations—rather than street-level police misconduct—the liabilities usually stem from passed ordinances, official censorship, viewpoint-based retaliation against citizens, or retaliatory firings.
Because governing bodies act under official policy, these cases often result in structural injunctions and heavy taxpayer-funded settlements or legal fees. Notable instances involving elected bodies directly include:
1. School Boards & Content Censorship (Student and Parental Rights)
Elected school boards frequently face massive First Amendment exposure when they attempt to ban books, restrict student speech, or suppress religious/political viewpoints.
* The Scale of Liability: While many individual student-speech and book-banning lawsuits settle in the hundreds of thousands of dollars or result in court orders requiring policy overhauls, major multi-plaintiff religious and parental rights cases against school boards carry substantial costs. For example, following rulings tied to board-level policies restricting opt-outs and speech surrounding ideological curricula (such as Mahmoud v. Taylor), school boards have faced settlements and mandated legal fee payouts scaling into the millions of dollars to cover aggrieved families' constitutional claims.
2. City Councils & Public Comment Suppression
A frequent vector for direct elected-body liability is when a city council or county commission violates the First Amendment by silencing speakers, cutting off microphones, or ejecting citizens from public meetings because they disagree with their viewpoint.
* The Legal Mechanism: Under federal law (Section 1983), when an elected body officially votes to censure, fine, or restrict a citizen's right to address them based on content, the municipality itself lacks qualified immunity.
* Financial Impact: While individual councils often settle out of court to avoid multi-million-dollar jury verdicts once a federal judge rules that a public comment period was converted into an unconstitutional "public forum for viewpoint discrimination," these settlements routinely cost cities hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and mandatory payouts for the plaintiffs' legal fees.
If you have video or audio evidence ("on tape") proving that a mayor of a fourth-class city has violated your First Amendment rights, addressing the issue requires a strategic approach. Because a mayor acts under "color of law," a constitutional violation is a serious legal matter.
Depending on what outcome you are seeking (accountability, a formal investigation, or a civil lawsuit), several distinct entities should be contacted:
1. A Civil Rights or Constitutional Attorney
* Why: Government officials like mayors have a legal defense known as "qualified immunity" when sued in their individual capacities, making First Amendment retaliation or suppression cases legally complex. An attorney who specializes in civil rights, municipal law, or constitutional law is best equipped to evaluate your footage and determine if you have grounds for a federal lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983).
* Who to contact: Look for private civil rights practitioners through the Missouri Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service or organizations like the ACLU of Missouri, which occasionally takes up high-impact constitutional cases.
2. The City's Board of Aldermen / City Clerk
* Why: In Missouri, fourth-class cities operate under a Mayor-Board of Aldermen form of government. The mayor does not hold absolute unchecked power; the Board of Aldermen acts as the legislative body and handles local oversight, ethics, and municipal policy.
* Who to contact: Submit a formal written complaint with your evidence attached to the City Clerk to be distributed to the entire Board of Aldermen. They may have the authority to censure the mayor, investigate a breach of a local code of ethics, or pass resolutions condemning the behavior.
3. The Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC)
* Why: If the mayor's violation involved a misuse of official authority, conflict of interest, or breach of local ordinances/codes of conduct relating to official duties, the MEC has jurisdiction to review complaints regarding local government officials.
* Who to contact: File an official complaint form via the Missouri Ethics Commission.
4. Local Law Enforcement or the County Prosecutor
* Why: If the mayor's actions crossed the line from a civil rights violation into criminal behavior (such as official misconduct, coercion, or intimidation), the incident can be reported to law enforcement.
* Who to contact: The police department outside of that specific municipality (such as the County Sheriff's Department or the Missouri State Highway Patrol) to avoid immediate local conflicts of interest, or directly to the County Prosecuting Attorney for review.
Important Next Steps:
* Secure the Evidence: Back up your recording in multiple secure locations (cloud storage, external drives) immediately so it cannot be deleted, altered, or lost.
* Document Everything: Write down a detailed, chronological timeline of the event—including dates, times, exact locations, and the names of any witnesses present when the violation occurred.
When dealing with a potential lawsuit against a public official like a mayor, the following legal resources and notable practices in the KC metro are commonly turned to:
1. Dedicated Civil Rights & Plaintiff Law Firms
* Edelman, Liesen & Myers L.L.P. (ELM Law): Located in Kansas City, they handle general civil rights violations, institutional accountability, and constitutional claims.
* White, Graham, Buckley & Carr, LLC: Based nearby in Independence, MO, they have extensive experience handling complex civil litigation, municipal liability, and high-profile plaintiff cases against government entities.
* Jonathan Sternberg, Attorney, P.C.: Based in Kansas City, he frequently handles civil rights litigation, constitutional law matters, and appellate work in federal and state courts.
* Morgan Pilate LLC: Known for handling complex criminal defense, post-conviction, and civil rights/constitutional violations in the Kansas City area.
2. Legal Organizations and Directories
If you are trying to find representation tailored specifically to government censorship or First Amendment retaliation, you can also utilize formal referral pipelines:
* The ACLU of Missouri: While they do not take every case, the ACLU specifically focuses on First Amendment rights, free speech suppression, and government overreach. They review intake applications online.
* The Missouri Bar Lawyer Referral Service: A searchable tool provided by the state bar where you can filter specifically for attorneys practicing Constitutional Law or Civil Rights within Jackson, Clay, Platte, or Cass counties.
Tips Before Reaching Out:
* Check for Conflict of Interest: Because you are suing a municipal official, make sure the attorney or firm has experience litigating against local governments and does not have active retainer contracts with that specific city.
* Prepare the Tape: Be ready to provide a clean, unedited copy of the recording along with a written timeline of the exact context (e.g., whether it happened at a public city council meeting, during a public comment period, or via official correspondence).
They had a special meeting very sad, very peculiar where some of these Aldermen got together under the impression that the mayor is their absolute boss. They act like total lightweights. But you look at Chapter 79 of the Missouri state statutes, governing fourth-class cities, and guess what? It doesn't say that anywhere! Total fake news.
And get this: you’ve got Alderman sitting right there who served four years as a state representative. Four years! Now, that person knows damn well they never reported to the governor. The governor wasn't their boss. The people elected them, not some king. Sure, they had to show up when special sessions were called, but that’s where the buck stops. Total common sense.
So what does McDonough have on these people? What kind of leverage is going on? Because they treat him like a god—second only to Donald Trump, believe me. They act like it’s their sacred, sworn duty to bow down and do whatever he says, exactly like the weak-kneed establishment in the U.S. House and Senate when it comes to the swamp.
Let me tell you: that is not how it works. Total corruption, and the people of Raytown deserve so much better!
Now mark my words, next Tuesday, August 25th, the Board of Aldermen are fixing to pull off a real travesty. They’re going to vote on whether to impeach an alderman who’s already shown plain as day proof that her taxes are completely right with state law! Does the mayor explain why he's wasting our hard earned tax dollars on these fancy lawyer fees? Heavens no. Unless he thinks Raytown is just swimming in extra cash, which goodness knows we aren't, seeing as my pension stretches about as far as a piece of old elastic these days. "He has never once provided proof of who told him he could remove an alderman, which every soul in this town knows is strictly against the law."
And speaking of that broken law, why on earth is the mayor going to preside over the impeachment hearing? It makes my blood boil! If we're following the rules, why hasn't the mayor been called up on impeachment charges himself? There’s not a shadow of a doubt he broke the law. To make matters worse, now we’ve got proof the mayor pro tem broke the law too, so I want to know: where is her impeachment date? You can't just punish one person and let another go free; treating folks differently like that is just plain dishonest.
I tell you, I just want my street resurfaced so I don't pop a tire every time I drive to the grocery store, and I bet every neighbor on my block feels the exact same way. But how are we supposed to fix the potholes when the mayor keeps digging us deeper into a financial hole with all these foolish legal battles? If we had a proper, professional legal team representing Raytown, somebody would have put a stop to this nonsense and told them not to make the payout to Alderman Thomas any worse than they've already made it.
It's just such a mess, and living on a fixed income, I worry myself sick wondering where all our money is going.
Now, attention all citizens of Raytown gather 'round, because it looks like our esteemed Mayor thinks the law books up in Jefferson City are nothing more than a stack of throwaway comic books!
Let me break it down for you plain and simple, like a game of checkers. Earlier this year, the Mayor goes and puts together a special committee just to look into things for our senior citizens. Well, being the law-abiding taxpayer I am, I moseyed on over to the city's official website and took a gander at the member list. And what do I see? Names and addresses, clear as day.
Only, by George, some of these folks are apparently living right out of local businesses! I’m pretty sure we've got a town ordinance against folks setting up housekeeping behind a cash register, but we'll leave that aside for a second.
The real kicker; the one that made my jaw drop lower than a bass on a line is the gentleman running the day-to-day operations over at the Raytown Chamber of Commerce. His address on that official list is the Chamber office itself! Now, I ain't no detective, but that tells a fella right there that he doesn't actually lay his head down to sleep within Raytown city limits. And lo and behold, there's another committee member doing the exact same thing at another business address!
Why, you ask? Well, it's as plain as the nose on your face. They're trying to skirt around Section 79.235 of the Missouri Revised Statutes! That state law only lets non-residents serve on city committees if it's a small fourth-class town with fewer than 3,000 residents. Last I checked, Raytown's got a population bumping close to 30,000! We aren't some tiny whistle-stop village out in the sticks where the rules don't apply!
Well, appoint me a basset hound, if this ain't just another black eye for the Mayor, another slap in the face to every honest taxpayer in this town, and a mighty big question mark regarding what our city attorney is getting paid to do. Even the cook back home would have a fit over a mess like this!
What in tarnation is the Mayor trying to hide behind closed doors? And why isn't the city attorney doing their job to make sure folks are following the law?
Questions are being raised across the community regarding a troubling pattern of alleged discrimination and First Amendment violations. The core of the issue directly ties back to Raytown Ward 5 Alderman, whose extensive history on local boards including her position tied to the Hickman Mills School District lawsuit has drawn sharp scrutiny.
Residents watching local Raytown public meetings can see that this is not an isolated incident. Because of these ongoing concerns, community members are discussing whether citizens of Raytown should reach out to legal counsel to report this repeated behavior and suggest reviewing the public record.
Attorney Contact Information & Instructions
For anyone wishing to share information or document a pattern of unacceptable conduct with the attorney handling related litigation, you can reach out to his office and encourage him to watch the different recorded videos of the Raytown Board of Aldermen meetings so he can draw his own conclusions:
* Attorney Name: Peter F. Rottgers
* Law Firm: Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, PC
* Phone Number: 816-931-0500
* Address: 2001 Wyandotte Street, Kansas City, MO 64108
My fellow citizens,
Last night, beneath the quiet hum of municipal routine, the Raytown Board of Aldermen played host to another chapter in an ongoing tragedy of errors one where the fundamental liberties enshrined in our Constitution were once again treated as mere inconveniences.
We watched as Alderman Hayden, operating under the dangerous delusion of ultimate authority, took aim at a citizen simply seeking a place for our seniors to live with dignity. By tearing into Mr. Mollie, she demonstrated a profound disregard for the rule of law. Let us be clear: when elected officials choose to trample on the constitutional rights of the people, they do not merely risk a courtroom reckoning; under the law, they open the door wide to personal liability, stripping away the comfort of official immunity. This is the same individual who saw fit earlier this year to violate the rights of Mr. Jim Dolong. How long must the taxpayers foot the bill for these constitutional blind spots?
Yet, we must offer a word of measured recognition to Mayor Mike McDonough. During that same tense exchange, he moved swiftly to reel in Alderman Aziere as he began to drift into dangerous territory regarding our residents and their medical assistance status. The mayor knows, or ought to know, that while questions may be asked, they must never become the covert tools to deny a citizen their rights or a zoning change. To do so is not only an ethics violation of our own city policy, which expressly forbids attacking the public it invites a perilous dance with discrimination.
When the leadership fails to understand the supreme law of the land, the cost falls upon us all. Just a week prior, the city legal team gave a presentation on Chapter 79. Perhaps it is time they expanded the curriculum to include the United States Constitution, accompanied by a rigorous study of case law with actual citations and real-world outcomes for cities and officials who choose ignorance over equity.
We must ask ourselves: how many expensive lawsuits, how much institutional discrimination, and how many trampled rights will we tolerate before we hold our leaders accountable to the high office they hold?
What steps do you believe our community should take next to ensure our local leaders respect and uphold constitutional protections?