Will Shaun Missey's Name Be Placed Back on the April Ballot?

Arnold's city attorney said Missey was disqualified because he was in arrears on city taxes that are generated from personal property taxes. But the city's finance director says Arnold does not receive any direct payment from those taxes.

Shaun Missey, an Arnold City Council candidate, was disqualified from the April race for not paying his 2012 personal property tax by the candidate filing date.

It was a bit confusing because two city council candidates who were deliquent on their property taxes were allowed to run in 2011. Those candidates included current Ward 2 Councilman Bill Moritz and Randy Crisler.

City Attorney Bob Sweeney said in a previous interview that while a municipal candidate can't be disqualified for being delinquent on personal property taxes, they can have their name removed from the ballot for not paying city taxes or fees.

He further explained in the interview that he recently learned a portion of the personal property tax, specifically the road and bridge line item, goes to the city.

"It is in effect a city tax Missey owed that we did not get," Sweeney said in the interview.

However, Deborah Lewis, Arnold's finance director, recently told Patch that the city receives no direct payment from personal property taxes.

"Whether we receive money indirectly, I don't know," Lewis said. "But we don't get a share of personal property tax money."

Patch tried unsuccessfully to reach Sweeney several times last week.

Specifically, we wanted to know if Missey's name would be placed back on the ballot since according to Lewis, the city receives no direct payment of personal property taxes.

Update 2:30 p.m.: Patch spoke with Sweeney who said Missey is still disqualified from running for council. Per the Missouri Sunshine Law, we have requested a memo Sweeney sent to the city on Friday regarding the decision. We will provide an additional article once we receive the memo.

See previous articles:

  • Missey: "How Am I Supposed to Pay a Bill I Didn't Receive?"
  • Two Arnold Council Candidates Disqualified From April Election
Matt Hay February 11, 2013 at 02:58 PM
I find the inability to get in touch with Bob Sweeney interesting. Usually, he is like a moth to flame when it comes to the media. Heck, he uses Ed Rhode, fmr Francis Slay Staffer, and current American Traffic Solutions Public Relations guy (and husband of Patricia Hagemann, St. Louis City Attorney), to announce his press conferences. (Coincidental that all of them are involved with Red Light Cameras?) I sure hope you can reach him, because if you cannot, he must be avoiding. Sure looks like Election Tampering to me.....but it would not be the first time.
Sheri Gassaway (Editor) February 11, 2013 at 03:02 PM
I am supposed to talk to him after 11 a.m. today.
Kelly Kelly February 11, 2013 at 04:31 PM
It shouldn't matter if Arnold benefits or not! If he hasn't paid his taxes he should not be able to run. In fact you should not be allowed to run if you have any deliquent bills. If a future employer can run a credit check on you because they believe this is a testament to your character why can't the City of Arnold do the same? How many people have run in the past that should not have, how many people hold office right now that should not have been allowed to run?
Sheri Gassaway (Editor) February 11, 2013 at 08:47 PM
This article has been updated as of 2:30 p.m. with additional information from Arnold's city attorney.
JC Penknife February 11, 2013 at 09:12 PM
I hope you will post Sweeney's memo in its entirety.
Doris Borgelt February 11, 2013 at 09:22 PM
Sheri, Being on the city council, one would think I would have received a copy of this so called memo, but alas I have received nothing. If you are able to obtain a copy, I would appreciate your sharing it with the rest of us mushrooms.
Matt Hay February 11, 2013 at 09:32 PM
So why was it legal for Bill Moritz and Randy Crisler to be on the ballot? Did he ever answer that question? Your update says, "I sent a memo," yet the question of why was the law was interpreted one way for Shaun Missey, yet interpreted another way for Bill Moritz. Did Sweeney refuse to answer that?
Sheri Gassaway (Editor) February 11, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Matt, that question was answered in this article: http://patch.com/A-18Kf. And yes, if I receive the document I requested, I will share it on our site.
Matt Hay February 11, 2013 at 10:10 PM
Guess you were not on the "Need to know" list. Rigging elections is not hard work, and the more folks involved, the greater the risk of it blowing up in your face. As for the Sunshine Request and the memo, my guess is that they are going to refuse on the basis of "pending litigation" stating that because litigation has been threatened, that the memo is therefore exempted from Sunshine......my guess is, the extent of the memo is the legal equivalent of "I Love Chicken and Waffles, and oh, by the way, Randy and Bill are my friends. I run the City of Arnold" or something else nonsensical like that. That is how Arnold operates, you know this by now. Things which the City of Washington hands over in 2 days for mere copying costs, the City of Arnold denies having, but if I want them to look again, I have to put a $500 down payment down. Though no one has ever explained to me how it is that Arnold uses the same VPS that Washington used, and that Washington could provide the information on request, yet Arnold denies having it. Their adherence to the law is a joke.
Matt Hay February 11, 2013 at 10:31 PM
I saw an answer from Sweeney in that article, but it was an answer contradicted by the facts, no? While Sweeney passionately argues that the Clerk has no duty or ability in 2011 (no mention of the disposition of the tax funds), he does a 180, and then says the disposition of the funds matters, and he just learned Arnold receives a portion, which the Finance Director disputes. (Where did Mr. Sweeney get this information from ?) An answer which has been disproved is no longer an answer, is it? The goal is the truth, correct? Do you believe Mr. Sweeney's statement in the article you refer to is truthful on its face based in the memo which was circulated previously and what Ms. Lewis has told you? And I assure you, I am not JCPenknife as you have intimated to others privately, nor do I know who the individual is. I envy do their ability to be as engaged and insightful as they are, but I assure you, I do not have the time at the moment to drop the payloads of Truth that the individual known as JCPenkife delivers on a regular basis, though, I do gladly host documents for them on my Scribd account however.
Sheri Gassaway (Editor) February 11, 2013 at 11:08 PM
Matt, I have never told anyone you were the writer for the Penknife, so please get your facts straight before accusing me of something I did not do. I have always known it wasn't you because I am quite familiar with your writing style. I do know who the writer is because that person called me to discuss comments on the phone - something I have asked you to do repeatedly, and not once have you called me. All I ask is you stick to the terms of service. Stay on topic and no personal attacks. And no, I will not reveal to anyone who the Penknife writer is because that person has requested to be anonymous.
Matt Hay February 11, 2013 at 11:38 PM
You have addressed the insubstantial off topic portion of my post, however, I stand by my statement. This was prior to your conversation and perhaps they were just your suspicions based on my Scribd account, but nonetheless, can you address the on topic portion? You stated this was answered, but it seems your research has now proven his answer to which you directed me is inaccurate at best. So yes, while it was an "answer" Sweeney provided, it is an obviously incorrect one, as you yourself have disproven the foundation for which it was premised. Would you consider Mr. Sweeney's prior statement on the matter accurate?
Bob Hohmeier February 13, 2013 at 05:27 PM
Seems the Sunshine request should have been honored by now? "When a request is made for access to a public record, the records custodian must allow access as quickly as possible, but no later than the end of the third business day following the date of the request. Records must be provided in the format requested, when available."
Matt Hay February 14, 2013 at 03:24 AM
Did you get your copy of Sweeney's memo? Today was the end of the 3rd business day.
Sheri Gassaway (Editor) February 14, 2013 at 03:42 AM
I picked it up late today. I'll try work on that tomorrow.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »