Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Activist Clay Chastain Accuses Mayor Sly Of Malfeasance After Question 2 Defeat
Amid a torrent of presser rage and angry spirited statements following a decisive defeat of his streetcar transit proposal . . . Here is a copy of the complaint Clay Chastain filed today with Missouri Attorney Josh Hawley asking him to oust Mayor Sly James from office for his (alleged) numerous acts of misfeasance and malfeasance against Mr. Chastain's petitions . . .
Citizen Chastain files complaint with Attorney General Josh Hawley to oust Mayor Sly James for malfeasance of office.
Dear Mr. Attorney General,
In his 6-years in office Kansas City's Mayor Sly James has led the City in sabotaging 3-consecutive petition elections involving transit proposals from (then) Kansas City, Missouri elector Clay Chastain and the voters of Kansas City as follows:
(1) In 2014, James led the City in placing before voters a corrupted version of a valid light rail petition proposal from the people that failed not only to include the light rail plan that was written on the face of that petition signed by voters, but also failed to even mention the words light rail! The City's corrupted ballot language (designed by James and the City's legal staff) ignored a mandate from voters to vote on light rail. James manipulated the outcome of a Kansas City Election. Thus, the people did not even know what they were voting for. Consequently, voters overwhelmingly rejected that eviscerated meaningless petition proposal.
(2) In 2016, James led the City in placing before voters Chastain's next valid light rail petition plan but not before he instructed the City Attorney to label the ballot measure "illegal" (in his public testimony to the City Council and media) and that it could be repealed by the council, if approved by voters. James directed the City Attorney to do this after having directed the City Attorney months earlier to communicate to Mr. Chastain and his attorney, Jeffrey Carey, that Chastain's light rail petition was lawful and acceptable before Chastain began to circulate it among voters. In other words, Mayor James acted in bad faith in deliberately misleading Mr.Chastain, the Light Rail Committee's attorney and all the voters who thought they were signing a lawful petition. Consequently, voters rejected that deliberately tainted light rail measure as well.
(3) On August 8, 2017, James led the City, yet again, in deliberately placing before voters ballot language that was a corrupted version of another valid Chastain-led petition transit proposal. This time, James violated the law and Section 712 of the City's Charter that requires the City to place "a concise and unprejudiced statement of the substance of such ordinance (petition) before voters as follows:
(a) The City's corrupt, vague and deliberately misleading ballot language referred to the petition as a plan to "extend the City's streetcar system," even though the petition, in its "original form" (see Charter Section 702), specifically called for "transforming the City's (downtown) streetcar system into a rapid citywide rail system" in which the streetcars would no longer operate slowly in traffic and be confined to the downtown area. Instead, the archaic-operating and parochial streetcar system would be transformed into a new rapid citywide rail system separated from traffic.
(b) The City's corrupt, vague and deliberately misleading ballot language ambiguously stated the rail system would be extended in "one or more directions" even though the petition, in its original form, specifically stated where the rail lines would run and where the rail cars would stop. Mr. Attorney General would you ever vote in favor of a $1.2 billion rail proposal that did not even tell you where the rail lines would run? Of course not. A prejudiced-acting Mayor James and the City omitted these crucial details from the petition proposal knowing voters would reject such a vague plan. And they did, 58 to 42.
(c) The City's corrupt, vague and deliberately misleading ballot language also stated that the petition proposal "might" include a fleet of electric buses, even though the petition proposal, in its original form, specifically provided for such a system.
Mr. Attorney General, if the people are to enjoy direct democracy in Kansas City via the democratic petition process (a special right provided them in the State of Missouri and in Kansas City's, voter-approved, Charter) that right and law must be respected by elected officials. Otherwise, that right and law becomes meaningless. One of your duties, as I understand it, is to enforce the laws of the State of Missouri. As noted above (c), Mayor Sly James has broken petition law (malfeasance), and manipulated the outcome of a Kansas City, Missouri election, by deliberately placing before voters sabotaged ballot language. James' corrupt ballot language was not only a prejudiced statement (because James' ballot language intentionally put the petition proposal to voters in a most vague, unfavorable and confusing light), but James' ballot language was also corrupted in that it did not reflect, in no way shape or form, the "substance" of a valid petition proposal submitted, in good faith, to the City from thousands of Kansas City voters.
James' corrupted ballot language (Ballot Question #2 on Kansas City's August 8 Election) violated the law as outlined in Section 712 of the City Charter of Kansas City, Missouri. James is thus guilty of malfeasance of office.
Therefore, I respectively request that you, Attorney General Josh Hawley, have Mayor Sly James ousted from office for his numerous and deliberate acts of misfeasance and malfeasance in sabotaging the ballot language of valid petition proposals from the voters of Kansas City.