A potentially explosive situation ended anticlimactically Tuesday when the Brentwood Board of Aldermen went into closed session to discuss outsourcing the Brentwood police and fire dispatchers’ jobs to the East Central Dispatch Service (ECDC), and returned with no vote taken.
A Facebook page called SAVE the Brentwood Dispatchers says the seven Brentwood dispatchers would lose their jobs if the proposal passed, and makes the case that it’s also a matter of public safety.
Around 15 were in the audience when the aldermen voted to go into a closed session. Aldermen Anthony Harper, Cindy Manestar and Maureen Saunders opposed closing the meeting. As they left, a resident said as a taxpayer he has a right to attend the meeting but mayor Pat Kelly said, “No you don’t.”
Many in the audience were city employees or spouses and had no comment.
Angie Wahlig-Hulshoff, not a city employee, said she has a child with asthma so it’s important to her to have the best possible emergency services, and anyone in Brentwood could also have an emergency.
Lisa Beckman, a former dispatcher for both the ECDC and Brentwood, said it’s just not a good fit.
When the council returned after an hour, mayor Pat Kelly said the city had received a proposal from ECDC, which the city is obligated to review. He said the meeting was the first time the board heard about the service, and no decision will be made until they meet another one or two times.
He said it’s not a money issue. “This is an issue of how we can provide the best service for not only the residents but also our public safety employees,” he said.
While it is typically true that personnel issues -issues regarding individual employment contracts, disciplinary issues, or leaves are held in closed session, this proposal is NOT a personnel issue. Rather, it is a proposal for services rendered to the city. IF the proposal were accepted, the severance implications, etc would be a closed session matter.
Just my humble opinion.
I believe the citizens of Brentwood have a right to hear the pros & cons of this issue as well as the opinions held by our elected officials on the topic.
Isadora,
I have to apologize for my comments. You are obviously very versed in the rules of governing, and again, you are right, Brentwood should go back to the days of not following long established rules, procedure(s) and best practices for governing. Let’s just go back to the days of doing want we want without following rules. That seemed to work out pretty well in the past…didn’t it?
I didn’t say don’t follow the rules. But laws and rules often change. This rule definitely needs to change.
Isadora,
OK, I’m trying to get this straight. When Alderwoman Saunders got elected she made the point over and over again that the City of Brentwood was not following it’s own rules or even following governing best practices. So over the past 1 1/2 years, under her leadership and guidance, the city has implemented new rules and best practices that are followed not only through out St. Louis County, but also on a national basis. But now you and others are arguing that you don’t like some of these rules and want to pick and chose the which ones the city should follow based on if you think the rules are fair to your particular cause. I think thats a great idea. Lets just follow the rules that we like, that won’t get the city in any trouble. You are a very wise one, I will let my Alderman know I expect him to only follow the rules that I like.
Again, if the rule / law says secrecy in board meetings is allowed (other than for personnel matters), then that needs to change. And it simply doesn’t matter if that is followed by many, some, or any other municipalities. This is a comments section. The whole point of a comments section is to argue for or against something. Describing something as “followed not only throughout St. Louis County, but also on a national basis” is not arguing for or against it. It is merely stating what the status quo happens to be.
Ms Bull,
Below you’ll find the link to the state statutes referencing closed meetings–(I believe section 11 & 12 are pertinent to this discussion). As you can see there are no less then 23 exceptions under which governing bodies may authorize a closed meeting. Needless to say, these laws are to be followed by every governmental body in the state and though they can be changed, it must be done via the Missouri House and Senate. I invite you to contact your representative if you’d like to pursue the matter further.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C600-699/6100000021.HTM
23 exceptions – that is WAY too many. What’s the point of even having the law with that many loopholes?
And again, you’re just pointing out the status quo. In a comments section the point is to QUESTION the status quo.
Joshua – I know it because the ones at the meeting and there were a lot there on Monday were there to support the dispatchers. I spoke with them. Our first responders are very nice people. They are concerned about the time it would take for a larger operation to get them information. Two other points they made were they have relationships with dispatchers that are helpful in critical situations, and people in the community also establish relationships with them.
That is how I know – Mike
I know the police and fire departments want our own dispatchers. A citizen states to the mayor it should be in open session we have a right to hear the discussion. the mayor’s reply “no you don’t”.
That is a very telling statement about our leader.
Mike, how do you know this is what both police and fire want. On your second point, proposals that involve discussions or personnel take place in closed meeting, in every city, not just Brentwood. This is how business is done, it’s not a conspiracy.
What a pitiful rationale – “everyone else does it, so we should too!”.
You’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of that “how do you know?” stuff. That’s the whole point of an open-door meeting: to find out more about the whole issue.
Isadora,
Here is what I have found out. People on this site comment without knowing actual facts. Contract and personnel negotiations are conducted first in closed sessions…whether you or anyone else like it or not that is how it is done in Brentwood, Clayton, Ladue and everywhere. And the funny thing is, when I ask how do know this or that no one has an actual answer.
Sorry Charlie, but “that is how it is done” does not a persuasive argument make.
And the funny thing is, when I ask for a better reason, I keep getting that same old “that is how it is done” baloney.
Except reviewing a proposal isn’t negotiation. At least not yet. Why doesn’t the public have the right to know what is being proposed and what our leaders think about it? Negotiation implies the proposal has enough merit to pursue at a detailed level. Are we there yet?
AGREE with most of all of your posts Isadora. Keep swinging until Kelly is out and rules and regulations are finally implemented on other than on the fly… Also, Alderman Saunders has taken a BEATING from cronyism and childish mudslinging. Alderman Manestar has also taken excessive heat in the court of jesters of King Kelly. It’s really time to bring back RESPONSIBLE AND RESPONSIVE govt to the people of Brentwood. Bottom line and first move: GET RID OF KELLY–Ald. Kramer and Ald. Saunders both seem to have a good grasp on the big picture.
I’m just happy no one reads these stories or comments accept those truly involved and the disgruntled/uneducated. So many comments from both sides that are uneducated. Don’t believe everything you read, make a REAL effort to get the REAL facts before you start putting your opinion in print.
Scary to think we let people like Frank even vote. We can only hope he is a very small majority because as we all know you can fool some of the people sometime, let’s hope not everyone has the level of learning that Frank has. We might end up with Daffy Duck as mayor if Frank is the only voter. I think Chris is probably right, the odds makers are betting that you are one of those taking advantage of our leaders ignoring the rules. Frank you should really sit this one out. The challenge you will be up against is the truth as compared to all the lies you are supporting. You can’t win, most citizens are smarter than you and we have seen through the nonsense. We are very happy to finally have an Alderperson who will stand up to the incompetence running the city. Nice try Frank, now go back to the cartoon channel and enjoy your day.
Nice comment Frank. It is folks like you who are the reason our city is in the shape it is in today. The truth really hurts and you don’t want to know it. Makes me wonder what benefits has this regime showered on you. Perhaps a no bid contract worth $!2,000. Maybe your construction firm always somehow has the lowest bid. Maybe its because you illegally collected pay for showing up for work. Maybe its because after gambling with the city’s money you walked away with all your benefits. Frank make sure to protect all those that have walked all over the law and had a total disregard for their responsibilities as the Brentwood political leaders. Sometimes Frank when you are not very bright it is best not to say anything that way no one will know your not that bright, unfortunately when a fool speaks, everyone realizes he is a fool. I guess in your case Frank you are a fool that likes being fooled. That is the only explanation I can figure with your comment.
I’ve lived in Brentwood for 30 years. My family (in-laws) for 55 years – all on the same street. I agree with you mary that we need to leave our dispatchers in place. I’ve watched homes burn and saved, watched folks (including my own family) be taken care of by our Brentwood fire, paramedics, and police. The almost instant dispatch has no price tag. Since we have now discovered that a class 4 city has no rights to health insurance, maybe they can pay our dispatchers with those saved funds. Elected city officials, get off your power trip. Stop rewriting history.
I support voting Alderman Saunders out of office
Ald Saunders does present a truth and reality that could be threatening to ostriches… I VOTE HER DEFINITELY IN… She cuts to the chase–wants the public to KNOW all the facts….I can see that may be too much for the entrenched in ignorance, or “don’t tell me the facts, just tell me what I should do…” Ald Saunders is A FACT FINDER—AND EXPECTS THE PUBLIC WANTS TO BE INFORMED. your bad on this one.
I support the Brentwood Dispatchers.
That doesn’t surprise me that a firemen would say that. Dispatching in general, Police or Fire, is a difficult job. It takes a certain kind of person to dispatch and do it well. I can’t answer for the firemen, but if they know anything about dispatching I’m quite sure they would agree as well.
I am interested in what the Police and Fire Chief’s have to say. I assume they will have input.
Joshua – the Brentwood fire chief and chief of police had no comment when recently contacted on this issue.
No offense to you Doug but why would they comment to you on this matter when they have not yet commented public ally before the aldermen.
Joshua – No offense taken. Just doing my job. Maybe we’ll find out what they think at some point. There is a Public Safety Committee meeting tomorrow that I plan on going to — you never know.
Joshua,
I have been doing this a long time and have had many dispatchers in my career, both good and bad. I am telling you, Brentwood is fortunate to have the dispatchers they have. Let me ask you, do you know what it takes to be a good dispatcher. I am willing to bet if you went and asked the police officers in Brentwood, they will agree with me. In case you were not at the meeting last night, half the gallery was police officer’s in support of keeping the Brentwood Dispatchers where they belong, in Brentwood
I am told by a fireman friend that fire dispatching is more complicated. What would the firemen say?
Mary,
I have not claimed to have any of the facts which is why I am not here saying “save our dispatchers” without knowing why we should be saving our dispatcher. Also, this not the Mayors decision, but for the entire board to decide. Before I jump to conclusions I want to hear what the police and fire chief have to say. Typical of these posts, when you have no facts to back up your position you run away. It’s easy to say “save our dispatchers” without knowing why they should be saved.
Joshua–excuse me, but from the tenor of your postings, I think King Kelly could name you as a dependent on his tax form…You argue opposite positions of what should or should not be publically discussed. Personnel matters aside, why isn’t everything transparent—including all the facts and proposal alternatives that the public never gets a chance to consider? Kelly is as transparent as Obama–not at all. Even the intelligent democrats know this.
Joshua,
By your comment, it is obvious that you do not work in the emergency services field. As a police officer, not in Brentwood, I can tell you Brentwood is fortunate to have some of the better dispatchers in the area. As for the proposal, you are right we don’t know what was proposed. Whatever the proposal was, it can’t be better than what you already have unless the bottom line is to save the city a couple of dollars, which contradicts what Mayor Kelly said. Mayor Kelly said this is not a money issue but an issue of how we can provide the best service for not only the residents but also our public safety employee’s. It is a no brainer that the residents and emergency personnel would be best served by leaving the Brentwood Dispatchers right where they belong, in Brentwood.
What makes you believe that Brentwood dispatchers are that good? Good at dispatching police? Good at dispatching fire? Don’t you think we should hear what the professionals from each department has to say?
DANGED RIGHT, CB.
Mary,
You are making the assumption without any facts that the Brentwood dispatchers actually do a good job. How do know without the facts that the proposal from ECDC is not better than what we currently have? Do you know what is involved in operating a dispatch service and how complex it actually is?
I have used that service several times. My family has used that service several times…ACTION and TIMING matter—That is how I am assessing my position.
Mary,
Again, how do you know what has been proposed is not better? Did you hear the proposal? Should we not wait to hear the opinions of the Police and Fire Chief? Everyone on these posts always seem to be in the habit of jumping to conclusions without the facts.
Until the Big Cheese smells as bad as he performs, I doubt even you, Joshua have any clue to all the facts. You can claim what you want. But all the ‘facts’ have not been presented in other large City operations–causing growing mistrust of this Mayor. You may enjoy a ‘3 card monte’ but Brentwood deserves FULL facts, clear, straight ‘shooting’ and not closed door meetings with relevant facts not forthcoming. I have had my say–sorry if you choose to linger..but i suggest you look at the big picture and historical practices coming out of this Mayor’s City Hall. Move on.
Mary,
I’m not sure what all of that means but you still don’t have the facts to argue that we should keep our dispatch service. I ask again, what if the proposal is better than what we currently have?
It means there are COMPLETE facts and “Distributed” therefore persuasive released facts. YOU don’t know all the facts–just what is released. That is what “all that” meant. Forgive me, but I need to move on and will not be notified of your further responses. G’day, mate!
LEAVE OUR DISPATCHERS IN PLACE. Maybe we need to look at OUTSOURCING OUR MAYOR… I am pretty fed up with his dismissal of the public’s right to know–and unaccounted for under-table dealings in just the past 2 years…KEEP OUR DISPATCHERS IN PLACE. Get rid of King Kelly and return Brentwood’s best interests back to the residents.
Comments are closed.