By Antonio D. French
Filed Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 1:04 PM
The membership of the 24th Ward Regular Democratic Organization voted last night to work against the proposed recall attempt of Mayor Francis Slay. PubDef is told the vote was unanimous. Labels: Francis_Slay, Mayor, Recall
"It was decided, after much discussion, that our ward organization would not sit silent while recall proponents pass the petition around the 24th Ward without the benefit of information from the ward association," said John M. Corbett, the group's president.
"We feel our collective voice must be heard in this matter, as it should always be the task of any ward organization to speak out in regards to issues of interest to ward voters," he said in an email to PubDef.
The 24th Ward, located in south St. Louis, has an 87.5% white population and voted overwhelmingly for Slay in the last primary. Given those facts, it is unlikely recall organizers would target the 24th as one of the 19 wards it must collect signatures in.
41 Comments:
As a white person who would never again vote for Slay, I'm offended that you look at the percentage of white voters in the ward as a reason why the ward will be pro-Slay. Just because I voted for him before doesn't mean I will again, and I know others who feel the same.
10/25/2007 1:46 PM
Well, given that the anti-Slay message is racially based, they probably wouldn't target a majority white district. If they added reasons besides race then possibly, but going into an all white neighborhood talking about racism probably won't go over well compared to targeting more diverse areas.
10/25/2007 1:53 PM
Anony #1, I did not say because the ward is mostly white, it voted for Slay (although in St. Louis, the racial make-up of the ward is an almost perfect predictor of with how it will vote).
I listed two reasons — the racial demographics of the ward and its overwhelming support of Slay in the last election — as reasons organizers probably won't expend resources there.
10/25/2007 2:13 PM
The fact that most elected officials will support Slay will make this recall effort a long shot.
If a black elected official supports Slay, is he disrespecting Sherman George?
There seems to be a line drawn in the sand over respect.
What facts are there in the testing and promotions controversy to lead one to respect Sherman George?
If anything, it appears Sherman George is ignoring the facts (judges order; national stats), while demanding respect. How does that work?
10/25/2007 2:32 PM
So, if I attempt to collect signatures in Dogtown will i get beat up?
Is that Democracy? Or is that just St. Louis?
10/25/2007 2:49 PM
Anony 1 again,
Well, Antonio, you certainly drew the link between the two. But since we're on the same side here I don't really want to argue about it any more.
Doug, the only people who think the anti-Slay message is racially based are those who make that the only thing they care about. The eminient domain, SLPS, lead, and Forest Park people are anti-Slay for other reasons. And some are against him for all of the above reasons. Including white people who don't think racism is okay.
I just think the effort to get a new mayor will be more successful if we don't allow it to be all and only about race, but about the broader issues that have caused widespread dissatisfaction from all corners of the city. For those who will yell that it should be about race and race only, well, which do you want more,to be right, or to win?
Cause this is a pretty big long shot. I hope the Plan B is underway to give us someone to vote for in the next mayoral election if the recall fails.
10/25/2007 2:54 PM
Bare in mind that this alot of this "vote" might also stem from the fact that the 24th Ward, and its Democratic group, helped recall its last Alderman. Recalls are a nasty and long process that can sometimes bring about more bad than good.
However, this vote to support Slay is also an exercise in democracy just as the recall is.
10/25/2007 3:05 PM
Lets be real folks...the clergy that is asking for the recall have enough trouble filling the seats on Sunday Mornings...even with the 24th Ward blocking them they wouldn't be able to get the 40k names they needed anyway.
I would love to see Harold Crumpton and B.T. Rice make this happen...opps I forgot they just do a whole lot of talking, and eating!
10/25/2007 3:15 PM
i still dont understand what did slay do that was racist? if there fire chief was white would we still be having this discussion?
10/25/2007 3:29 PM
I think that the parenthetical (i.e., not the main point of the story/post) provided needed context to the decision of the 24th Ward. This is the reporting style that I like so much about pubdef. Pithy, factual, and, most importantly, contextual.
The numbers were a statement of fact, just like the fact that the Ward is in South St. Louis (a map would have been nice though) and that the Ward voted for Slay.
Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, I think that this is the Ward that Slay lives in. So, no surprise here.
j
10/25/2007 4:23 PM
The Mayor lives in the 23rd Ward (Lindenwood Park area). The 24th Ward is mostly Dogtown and Clifton Heights, arguably more west than south in pure geographic terms, but certainly majority white.
10/25/2007 4:45 PM
As usual on this blog, facts are not used because they just get in the way.
Slay does not live in the 24th.
Also, the 24th is central corridor not "Southside".
Why are people still upset about lead? St. Louis was recently featured for the most progressive ant-lead program in the country by the Council of Mayors.
Sherman George was insubordinate and was punished. If he were white we would have heard nothing.
These "leaders" of the recall mostly live in the county and have no business telling us how to run our own government.
The public schools, Slay tries to fix=people mad, blame Slay. Slay hangs back so new people can try to fix=people mad, blame Slay. State takes over=people mad, blame Slay.
Seriously, certain people will blame Slay for everything. If it rains it must be Slay's fault. Get over yourselves.
I for one have grown tired of these professional protestors and will not sign a recall petition which will do nothing but waste more tax dollars.
10/25/2007 4:50 PM
"opps I forgot they just do a whole lot of talking, and eating!"
Anonymous comments like the above are great. This is why I love PubDef. It can be quite amusing.
But what about the question concering respecting Chief George when he ignores the facts?
Is this what you call "blind trust"?
Sherman George is a very nice man, but could it be that on this case, he used poor judgement, and if anything is in part responsible for continuing the racial divide in St. Louis?
10/25/2007 4:52 PM
The proponents of the recall cite Slay's demotion of George and his racially divisive politics as reason for recall. I don't hear the ministers talking about eminent domain, TIF's, demolition, or any other issues. If they only talk about race they won't get a lot of support because conservative south city whites are not receptive to that message.
10/25/2007 5:13 PM
To the above commenter who stated that the 24th Ward is not in south St. Louis, but rather in the central corridor:
The 24th Ward is entirely south of Highway 40 and much of it is even south of 44. By just about everyone's definition, that is south St. Louis.
And here is a map:
MAP
10/25/2007 7:45 PM
This is the fourth time I have posted this question somewhere on the internet. I have never received an answer, and would appreciate being educated on this point. The LACK of an answer does make me wonder.
Was there a legal requirement for George to promote anyone? If not, at what point did the responsibility transfer from George to Slay?
If there was not such a time---then, in what way was he insubordinate?
10/25/2007 7:51 PM
That's a good question, Kjoe. I hope someone answers it.
10/25/2007 9:22 PM
The Fire Chief is subordinate to the mayor; the mayor made the directive to promote; the Fire Chief failed to follow the directive of the Mayor and promote. As a result, the fire chief was insubordinate. In other words, the fire chief failed to follow the directive of his supervisor. Thereafter, he was terminated.
10/25/2007 9:55 PM
sounds legit to me.
I'd love to see how long anyone at any job would last if his/her boss gave an order and they said, naw, I don't wanna.
George's arguement holds no water.
It's sad...I liked him. Too bad he showed poor judgement.
10/25/2007 10:29 PM
Read in the American that the recallers got a grand total of 85 signatures at their rally last Sunday. If they hold one rally per week, they should reach their goal in a little less than ten years.
10/25/2007 11:01 PM
This city reminds me of mississippi. alabama, georgia,Arkansas.tennessee, virginia,all in one..check it out..back in the 60's white folks taunted the little rock 9. The parents even had their children outside spitting and shouting racial slurs at the little rock 9..and guess what..The racist in this town really wanted to be in front of city hall last sunday to tell all of the protesters here in st. louis to go home somewhere but they knew if they even tried all that dumb chit they would have recieved a ole fashioned azz whipping....On the question of the judge's decision to side with Slay doesn't make it right...It was that same element in the southern states that descriminated against black folks..Racist judges..so please don't ack as though if a judge agree with Slay that doesn't make him right in the decision to get rid of Sherman George..White folks need to go back and study their history as to how black were treated during the civil rights era...check out "eyes of the prize" I wonder when Chief George attorney peresented the city charter information to the judge regarding his authority to promote or not to promote..What was the judge response..I bet in his heart it was..the " to hell with the city charter"..so does that make the Judge right.....and somebody said that this is a democracy...
Well looks like the south has risen again..but in St. Louis this time.....
10/26/2007 2:12 AM
Just for fun, reverse the situation and put Bosley as Mayor and a white as fire chief. Add in the fact that there are a bunch of African Americans going to be promoted over whites based on a test the whites did not believe in. Dont you think the South Side would be up in arms?
10/26/2007 6:42 AM
If you want to compare St. Louis to Dixie, yeah, there are valid reasons: Many black people living in poor neighborhoods without good jobs and a lousy education system.
However, the Sherman George case hardly qualifies. George had a a good job. He was educated. He probably lives in a pretty nice house in a good neighborhood.
He made some personal choices that have not worked out well. The ironic thing is, the Clergy Coalition is making a semi-celebrity their cause, rather than dealing with the troubles facing the every day, struggling black family.
Why spend so much time on Sherman George instead of raising the public's outcry over jobs, education, crime, etc?
Rather than getting up in a frenzy and calling for the Mayor's recall, what could they be doing instead to engage the entire St. Louis community, black and white, to help improve conditions for poor, uneducated, victimized black families?
Don't say demanding respect for Sherman George is doing a thing to help the poor single mom living in Wells Goodfellow. Chances are, she's never heard of Sherman George, let alone the Clergy Coalition.
10/26/2007 7:58 AM
^ Of course the southside would be up in arms. They would just respond in a different way, with different tools that black St. Louis does not have access to.
Channels 2, 4, and 5 would have the fire chief on their morning shows telling of how the mayor had put the citizens at risk by micromanaging the department.
Stories would be on the front page of the Post about how the mayor's office had gone around the fire department in granting occupancy permits to certain businesses and developments owned by friends.
All of a sudden it would become a scandal that the mayor's deputy of development is married to the lobbyist whose clients have sucked millions out of the city in the form of development incentives.
All of a sudden the mayor's involvement with the schools would be seen as the disaster it has been.
All of a sudden reporters would be asking how many tens of millions in tax dollars have been redirected from property taxes (which would pay for public education and public safety) to development incentives to the mayor's campaign donors.
All of a sudden the media would "get it." And not even so much as because they understand or even care (remember, most of St. Louis media people don't live in our urban core) but because the audience, the people whose opinions affect their bottom lines, want to hear those stories.
As I said, black St. Louis doesn't have those tools.
10/26/2007 7:58 AM
Wow, the true Antonio just came out. You sir must stop this blog immediately. You are no journalist but an angry man with a score to settle.
I will make it my job to inform everyone of your bias.
You are beyond the pale Mr. French.
10/26/2007 8:28 AM
Hmmmm... a blogger who let's his personal opinion be known? OMG!
10/26/2007 9:04 AM
I don't agree that the southside would be up in arms, because most white people, not having traditionally been discriminated against, doesn't mind when others who score well and work hard succeed. What whites tend to get mad about is when they see others who scored lower/worked less hard, in their perception, getting what they see as an advantage because of skin color. Because it suggests to us not to bother working hard because you won't get a chance if the racial quotas aren't fulfilled.
Before everyone throws things at me, let me just say that I don't really mind affirmative action. Historical wrongs have to be righted somehow and if that's what it takes to level the playing field until time levels it for real, then I'm okay with that. Even when employers tell my family members that they are the best qualified technically but won't be hired because of "other considerations" (read between the lines). What I'm trying to show here is how many whites I know think. And also to point out that whites don't react to race issues as uniformly as blacks might, because the color of our skin is not how we primarily identify ourselves. Call it white privilege or whatever you choose, but manay of us, most I'd venture to say, don't think that way. So if we are all going to work together to make our city better and less embarrassing regarding racism, we should try to understand each other a little better, because assuming we all think and act the same way is not working.
10/26/2007 9:24 AM
Well I am white and live in the 24th,3 signatures in my household when they come knocking!!!But I will sign because the mayor wasn't proactive in this matter long ago and fire the chief!!Too much BS in city hall,clean house!!Could we also add our 24th ward alderman to the petition?? Useless!!!
10/26/2007 9:45 AM
85 signatures?!?!?!?!!!
It has been claimed that there were 'nearly a thousand' people at the recall Slay rally and only 85 signatures were gathered.
There is a disconnect. Either people weren't ready to gather signatures (better leadership is needed) or there weren't 'nearly a thousand' people at the rally or the people drawn to the rally are not those who can sign recall petitions or there were more than 85 signatures.
There may be other possibilities.
10/26/2007 10:16 AM
The guy was right on point..It is those racist judges that throw the facts out the window..Most of the judges in this area will side with City Hall when Slay want things done his way...These cases such as the Chief George case may end up in the U.S. Supreme Court...as long as his attorney pleads with these local judges..it is a waste of time......
And yall know the fellow was right...
10/26/2007 11:12 AM
^ Yeah, like a lot of the people there weren't city voters or residents.
10/26/2007 11:14 AM
thank you anonymous.
Anonymous said...
The Fire Chief is subordinate to the mayor; the mayor made the directive to promote; the Fire Chief failed to follow the directive of the Mayor and promote. As a result, the fire chief was insubordinate. In other words, the fire chief failed to follow the directive of his supervisor. Thereafter, he was terminated.
10/25/2007 9:55 PM
One little detail---If the reslutls of the test were known on May 1st, 2004, (just making the date up), could Slay have given George a directive on May 2nd, 2004, and if he waited too long---say 30 days----would Slay have had the legal right to fire him?
If the test would have been deemed unconstitutional, could Slay have issued a directive saying "I have observed the work of 30 firefighters which other firefighters and members of a public task force have told me deserved to be promoted, and I want you to promote them within thirty days, or you will be deemed insubordinate."
I am closer, thanks to your response, but still not clear on exactly what the circumstances can be which cause the fire chief to lose the power to decide who is promoted.
10/26/2007 1:21 PM
Kjoe,
Slay gave the issue a chance to work its way through the courts. It did and the issue was resolved, at least legally.
The fire chief serves at the pleasure of the director of public safety who serves at the pleasure of the mayor.
The fire chief was not legally required to promote anyone.
The power transferred when the mayor said it did. The fire chief was given ample opportunity to promote based on the test results. He chose not to.
I hope that answers your question.
10/26/2007 1:56 PM
I wrote the original post to kjoe about the issue of insubordination. There are 2 different issues here. First, I stand by my explanation regarding the Mayor's directive and the Fire Chief's insubordination. My explanation is accurate.
Second, several different issues are getting mixed up here. I often wonder if this is a misunderstanding or if the Chief's supporters have intentionally blurred the issues involved. The Fire Chief serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. He reports to the Director of Public Safety but there is indeed a legal issue of whether the Director of Public Safety can usurp the authority of the Fire Chief or any other appointing authority. That is why the stakes went up when Slay ordered George to make the promotions.
As for the tests, if the courts had found them to be racially biased, the Mayor could still, in theory, require that the Chief promote from the tests, but he would be opening himself up to huge liability. Such a decision never would have been made.
Further, the Mayor could have ordered the Chief to promote from the list months ago -- 2004 or whenever. If the Chief failed to follow the directive, he would have been insubordinate. That, however, would have been a foolish course of action. The Chief's demotion will be reviewed by the Civil Service Commission and the Mayor will have to defend it. Requiring the Chief to promote from a test that is being litigated or deemed racially biased would have been an irrational decision by the Mayor. For instance, if the Mayor directed the chief to make the promotions, the chief refused the directive, the chief is demoted as a result of the refusal and then the tests deemed racially biased, in all likelohood, the decision to relieve him of his duties would have been reversed. As a result, the Mayor handled the matter in a rational manner. He let it play out in court and once he determined that the courts were not going to deem the tests racially biased, he made the decision to require the promotions.
Too often, people get the issues of the test and insubordination mixed up. The Court was never telling the Chief to promote -- it was merely deciding that the test was not racially biased. Once this decision was rendered, it was appropriate for the Mayor to make the directive requiring the Chief to promote -- the Chief had no rational basis for refusing (he may have had other motives). The Chief loses power not because a court upholds test results. He loses power because he failed to follow the directive of the Mayor. The court decision merely backs up the legitimacy of the Mayor's request. The Mayor could have directed the Fire Chief to make the promotions before the district court made the decision in the case. But it was appropriate for him to wait since, in theory, the court could have found the tests invalid.
I hope that helps kjoe.
10/26/2007 2:38 PM
Thanks.
For me, that clarifies things a great deal.
I did some googling---found a lot of stuff under an article 18---things are very complex.Seems to date back to 1970.
I take your word for the chief serving at the pleasure of the public safety director. Chief George never did have the real power to have the final say in promotions, test or no tests.
The law does not seem to insulate the fire chief from micromanaging by any mayor who so desires---I guess that is up to the general public, unless, of course, the governor and the legislature decide that they should deal with that issue without input from St. Louis voters.
10/26/2007 2:39 PM
The clarification was helpful--we must have posted at identical times.
There are protections--beyond the voters for decisions by both sides.
Things do make a lot more sense to me, now.
Gotta wonder why I deserve this adequate a response.
10/26/2007 2:46 PM
I responded in thorough fashion because I recognize your name from insidestl.com.
Yes, it is very complicated. There was a consent decree in effect at one time and now tests are used for promotions. It is incredibly complicated -- as are most things in the City.
10/26/2007 3:30 PM
The thorough explanations given here are appreciated. I think there is one more step, though, to be completely thorough.
The fire chief serves at the will of the Director of Public Safety, who carries out the will of the mayor. Got that. Mayor makes order, fire chief doesn't obey, fire chief fired. Got that.
Next step. Mayor serves at will of the electorate, as fire chief served at will of mayor. Some people decide they don't like mayor's decision in said case, and decide they want to fire him. They begin to engage the democratic process to look for ways to fire him. They are told by his supporters to shut up because the mayor is supreme and should not be questioned because courts let him do it (and we all know the courts are always right, just ask Dred Scott). Well, people don't have to shut up. The voters are the mayor's bosses and they get to engage the process.
Now I don't really think the recall is the way to go, I would rather see the focus on a good candidate for 2009, but I am tired of the pro-Slay camp saying no one has a right to be upset with him. Of course they do. Pro-Slayers can vote for against recall, others can vote for it, and it will play itself out. Calling off the game completely is not fair. Although having gotten away with it in the SLPS disaster I can see why pro-Slay anti-democracy types think they can keep doing it.
10/26/2007 4:20 PM
I've not heard any Slay supporters say we can't have a recall.
The Slay people seemed more focused on running the City than dealing with 85 upset people.
I see recalls as a waste of tax dollars. I vote at elections not recalls. Buyers remorse is the fault of the purchaser not the purchase. Vote for some one else next election.
Recalls are a waste but it's a free country so feel free to do what ever you want.
10/26/2007 5:02 PM
The connections to the micro-managing and the SLPS are right on target. I just hope for everyone's sake that the mayor knows more about fighting fires than he does about education.
10/26/2007 8:36 PM
Perhaps the Slay people running the city and not worrying about the 85 upset people might consider a general rule of complaints--in customer service it is often considered true that if one person gets worked up enough to complain about something, there are a substantial number more who are upset but didn't write a letter. I'd say that probably holds true in the case of political rallies. I'd say a good percentage of people who vote don't go to political fundraisers or rallies. So if they think it's just 85 people, they might want to think again. But I understand they are busy. It's very time consuming to be not only mayor but school superintendent andfire chief as well, not to mention lobbying for a federal judgeship.
10/26/2007 9:02 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home