Engineered Coincidence

Don’t you just love it when everything comes together perfectly and at the perfect time?  When things that seem just too good to be true actually happen multiple times in a short time span?  When coincidence after unlikely coincidence happens in your favor?  This is the magical world of elves and unicorns that Mayor Stephens would have us believe he lives in.  Let me explain.

As I mentioned in my previous post This Is Your Town, October 26 was like Christmas to Stephens and he got everything he asked Santa for.  Previously, Councilman Burnett had proposed installing our National Motto, “In God We Trust” in the City Council chambers to follow suit of many other cities as well as police cars and government buildings across the nation.  He even had someone lined up to privately fund it.  In a spectacular show of unpatriotic character, our council, including our Mayor decided to table the issue and send it to committee which met on the morning in question.  Burnett was conveniently left off of this committee while Councilwoman Fulnecky was included.  When she tried to support our National Motto, there was no one else on the committee willing to second it and the issue died without discussion or vote.

Later that same day, Mayor Stephens submitted a letter to Councilman Hosmer, who leads the city’s Plans and Policies committee, in an effort to repeal the new indecent exposure ordinance.  In his letter he appeared to be pandering for Hosmer’s support by using the argument that the new ordinance’s language allows men to be indecent in public.  This was the same argument brought up by Hosmer at the City Council the day of the vote which was quickly exposed for its lack of merit.  Stephens also claimed that it violated the Constitution’s 1^st and 14^th Amendments. 

In an amazing coincidence, this was on the same day that the ACLU, at the prompting of the topless rally supporters, filed a lawsuit against the city for the indecent exposure ordinance.  In an even more amazing coincidence the lawsuit used much of the same language as Mayor Stephen’s letter.  Mayor Stephens, however, assured us that it was mere coincidence and that he had no prior knowledge of the lawsuit.  Evidence came to light strongly suggesting that this was not true (See my previous post This Is Your City).  

Later that night was the regular City Council meeting.   Katie Webb, one of the leaders of the topless rally supporters, had a failed attempt to rally supporters to show up at the Council Meeting and urge Councilman Burnett to resign.  It is unclear if anyone besides Webb herself actually showed up and not even she spoke. 

So let’s recap.  On October 26^th, 2015,

·        Our National Motto was defeated in committee.

·        Mayor Stephens writes a letter to Councilman Hosmer to try and get the indecent ordinance repealed.

·        The ACLU files a lawsuit against the city for the same ordinance.

·        The same group that incited the ACLU attempted to stage a scene at the City Council meeting. 

AND THIS IS ALL COINCIDENCE!

If it ended there it would be enough to cast serious doubt on the integrity of our Mayor.  But it doesn’t.  The best was still yet to come. 

          Councilwoman Kristi Fulnecky had a hard time believing in these apparent coincidences, especially after being confronted with strong evidence to the contrary.  Her integrity would not allow her to remain silent and she was compelled to go public with the fact that the Mayor was “misleading” the residents of Springfield and had, in fact, known about the impending lawsuit. 

Do you think it’s possible that he played a role in bringing the ACLU into this?  Could he be conspiring against his own city with the same group the ordinance was voted in to combat?  The fact that Jessica Lawson, listed as the plaintiff on the lawsuit, claimed that the Mayor had prior knowledge does seem to suggest that. 

Today, October 30^th, just days after Fulnecky made her allegations against Stephens, the Mayor scheduled a press conference.  No one knew exactly what to expect but most everyone thought that he would be responding to Kristi Fulnecky’s claims.  However, he had another “coincidence” up his sleeve. 

We all sat with bated breath as we waited for the Mayor to speak.  We weren’t prepared for the bombshell that was to blindside us!   Mayor Stephens proceeded to accuse Fulnecky of operating a business for seven years without the proper licensing and that her fees constituted a delinquent tax.  This would disqualify her from holding any public office.  Stephens also produced a letter he claims he’d “received” that was signed by five Council Members asking for an investigation of Fulnecky’s qualification for her Council seat. 

It is more likely, however, that the Mayor penned this letter himself and then got as many Council Members to sign it.  The only three that didn’t were Fulnecky herself, Justin Burnett, and Craig Hosmer (which might explain the pandering mentioned above).  At this time the case appears to be without merit.

Mayor Stephens would also like us to believe that this announcement JUST HAPPENED to come just days after Fulnecky called him out for dishonesty.  It was nothing more than a coincidence and not retaliation.  Coincidence after coincidence.

Well, Springfield, you are the jury.  Did the Mayor conspire against his own city, defying the will of the people and the vote of the council?  Did he pull an underhanded scheme to try to eliminate someone who stood against him?  Is he bullying the City Council to sign a letter he penned to unjustly recall a Council Member who acted with integrity? What say you, Springfield?  Do you believe in logic or do you believe in fairy tales?

Full Text of ACLU Lawsuit Against Springfield

THIS IS YOUR CITY!

How long have you lived in Springfield?  What is your favorite part of this city?  Is it the people, the small businesses, the Springfield Cardinals, First Friday Art Walk?  There is a lot to love about our city and there have been countless hours of work and taxpayer dollars to make and keep it that way.  The most noticeable improvements may be in the downtown area; namely The Square with its artwork and beautiful new fountain.   This, along with the Art Walk, has helped to cultivate an environment that has attracted people and families from multiple age groups and demographics as well as from surrounding cities. 

I, for one, love going to Art walk with my wife and seeing what residents of my city have created with amazing talent, the interesting wares the vendors peddle, and the many diverse cultures coinciding and enjoying it right along with me.  I also love seeing the small businesses that have popped up and contributed to Springfield’s charm.

Sure, Springfield isn’t perfect and there is still much to be done.   Crime, unemployment, a large problem with methamphetamine abuse, etc., continue to be problems which need continued attention.  Since these issues are inextricably tied to our economy, it is vital to create an environment where businesses can grow, where families can flourish, and that attracts people from surrounding areas to do business in our fair city.  Things such as the Art Walk and The Square have helped to set our downtown  area on a path to rejuvenation.

A few months ago, however, our city came under attack by a group of professional victims claiming gender equality and demanding that women have the same right to public toplessness that men do.  This could mean the destruction of any family friendly image we have thus far achieved.  A group of topless protesters, exploiting weak language in Springfield’s indecent exposure ordinance, invaded The Square during Art Walk wearing nothing but strategically placed tape from the waste up.  They then left The Square and paraded themselves in front of a concert being put on by middle school students.  It was even reported that girls as young as fifteen were taking part and being photographed by a myriad of older men.  Then the outcry began.

Numerous calls and emails began pouring into the City Council demanding that something be done.  Newly elected Council Member Justin Burnett answered Springfield by drafting a new indecent exposure ordinance that he modeled, and pretty much copied, from various other major cities including Missouri’s own St. Louis.  Then the true character of our city’s elected government began to show itself. 

The new ordinance was passed by a 5-4 vote with some council members being swayed by the inundation of emails from their constituents telling their Council Members to support it.  Mayor Stephens voted against it.  (This is the same city council that voted to table a motion to install our country’s national motto in the City Council Chambers and then defeat it later in committee without vote or public voice.)  Only Council Members Burnett and Fulnecky whole heartedly supported the both bills.

          That should have been the end of it.  The people spoke, the Council voted, the ordinance passed, the end. Right?.... WRONG!  The protesters decided to get revenge for their hurt feelings by targeting the Councilman who actually did his job: Justin Burnett.  They, under the leadership of Katie Webb, Jessica Lawson, and Bon Tindle, began a recall petition to get Burnett removed from office.  After a very dismal beginning resulting in lack of volunteers and even a bigger lack of signatures, it appeared as though the protesters campaign was fizzling out.  Then it happened. 

          On October 26, a coordinated attack was lobbied against this city and its residents.  Katie Webb had a failed attempt at recruiting people to show up at the City Council meeting that night and call for Burnett’s resignation.  That same morning, Mayor Stephens had sent a letter to Councilman Hosmer of the city’s Plans and Policies committee asking that they look at the new ordinance.  He claimed that he believed that it may violate the 1st and 14th Amendments of the Constitution and that it should be repealed.  Keep in mind that nobody had tried to get a repeal issue on the ballot such as happened with SOGI.  This was the Mayor working on his own.

          That same day the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Springfield naming Jessica Lawson in the suit.  This lawsuit was eerily similar to Stephens letter to Hosmer.  When asked if he had had any knowledge of the impending lawsuit he said that he hadn’t.  However, Jessica Lawson claimed that he had full knowledge of the suit.  So it appears that our very own Mayor Stephens was working with the people who wanted to destroy the city’s image and expose women in public to bring a lawsuit against Springfield. 

          Councilwoman Kristi Fulnecky had had enough.  In an interview she claims that Stephens had lied and was misleading to the people of Springfield.  This obviously did not sit well with Stephens who has major political ambitions.  How Stephens responds to all this in the coming days will be very telling about his character. 

          People of Springfield, this is YOUR CITY!  In which direction do you want it to go?  Does Mayor Stephens reflect the future that you want for your city?  Do the Council Members who voted against the ordinance and our National Motto have your best interests at heart? Springfield’s future is in your hands. Only by speaking out for what you believe is right for your city can you make a positive difference.  There is no middle ground.  There is no more time for pacifism.  They city’s government works for you!  If they do not reflect your views, you can fire them.  An effort to recall Mayor Stephens will soon be underway.  Will you stand up for YOUR CITY? 

Mayoral Deception

A few months ago, Springfield MO. Mayor Robert Stephens voted "No" on a new Indecent Exposure ordinance.  Initially he had pushed the button to vote "Yes" but after the results were announced and the ordinance was passed claimed that he had inadvertently pushed the wrong button.  This vote followed a period of comments wherein each City Council Member, including Mayor Stephens, gave an explanation as to why they were voting the way they were.   In his monologue, Stephens chastised the supporters of a recent topless rally that had been held in down town Springfield calling their efforts an "epic fail."

He then turned his sights on the public supporters of the new ordinance.  He began throwing insults and accusations of "woman blaming" at the supporters.  This was a misguided and baseless label considering that the supporters were trying to uphold decency, safety, and a family friendly image for their beloved city.  Not to mention, the large majority of supporters for the stricter ordinance were WOMEN!

He also gave a stern reprimand to the local news media for putting forth so much effort on such an issue while he felt there were many more important issues the media ignored. He even held up a copy of the Springfield News Leader citing that the hungry children in our city would be a better use of the council's time.  Many other Council Members also cited hungry children as a more noble cause than public decency even though there was nothing on the agenda about hungry children whatsoever.

Apparently, the hungry children that the mayor was so concerned about only months ago now have to take a back seat as he wastes more of the city's precious time on the issue in an attempt to enlist Councilman Hosmer and his Plans and Policies committee in hopes of repealing the new ordinance citing a possible violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.  These allegations will fall flat seeing as the same ordinance is in effect in multiple other U.S. cities including St. Louis MO.,  Cape Girardeau MO., and Chicago IL.

Mayor Stephens is also claiming that the new ordinance removed language limiting exposure of male genitalia, effectively making it legal for men to walk around exposed.  This is the same objection that Councilman Hosmer himself made during the debate.  He was quickly shut down by multiple people including Councilman Justin Burnett, the author of the ordinance, who simply read the ordinance out loud to Hosmer proving that it gave men so such liberty.  Perhaps Hosmer and Stephens should try reading it for themselves before making baseless accusations.

Now for things to get really sticky.  Mayor Stephens wrote to Councilman Hosmer on  Monday, October 26; the same day that the ACLU filed a lawsuit that nearly mirrored the Mayor's letter, against the city of Springfield.  The Mayor stated that he had no knowledge of the ACLU's impending lawsuit.  This, however, was contradicted by a statement by Jessica Lawson, who is named in the lawsuit, who claimed that Mayor Stephens knew.  She is also a supporter of the topless rallies as well as the Springfield Slut Walk and is helping to spearhead an effort to have Councilman Justin Burnett, their chosen vessel of blame, recalled from office.

So it appears that Mayor Stephens, aside from turning his back on all those poor hungry children he wasn't even helping in the first place, has conspired with supporters of indecent exposure to incite the ACLU to file a lawsuit against his own city and then lied about it on the evening news.  Perhaps we need to petition for a Mayoral recall instead...