Wallace and grommet
Responding to the Post-Dispatch article reporting his statement that Mayor Slay is a "modern-day George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door," St. Louis School Board member Peter Downs said he is correct in laying responsibility for withheld funds at City Hall's front door.
In his newsletter, St. Louis Schools Watch, distributed today, Downs said the Mayor has exerted influence over the retiring Collector of Revenue, Ronald Leggett. The office is holding back $5 million in funds collected for the school district while protested taxes are dealt with.
Downs cites Missouri Revised statute 139.031, saying that as the taxing entity, the St. Louis School District is responsible for handling taxes submitted under protest, not the collector of revenue. According to the statute, the collector of revenue is to impound any taxes collected under protest.
Downs asserts, correctly, that it is the taxing authority, not the collector, that is responsible to refund the taxes if the protest is successful. However, the collector must first release the funds under protest to the district. To do so, the district must apply to the circuit court for the funds to be released.
As of this afternoon no one was available at the school board or Leggett's office to confirm whether such a request has been made. There is a filing (case #0622-CC05339) by the St. Louis Board of Education against Ronald A. Leggett for "other extraordinary remedy" in Circuit Court listed on July 28th on Casenet. Downs says, additionally, that a city-appointed attorney is challenging the process. If the case cited above is the filing required, there has been no additional action recorded in Casenet besides the issuance of summons.
Part of the requirements for the court to release the funds include, "a satisfactory showing that such taxing authority would receive such impounded tax funds if they were not the subject of a protest and that such taxing authority has the financial ability and legal capacity to repay such impounded tax funds".
The district might have a tough go of proving the financial ability to repay the protested taxes, should they need to repay them.
Posted by travis reems on Sat., Aug 26, 2006 at 10:13 AMSo what's the deal? Has the St. Louis Public Schools been placed in the same category as Hamas?
Methinks the Slay/Aboussie power structure hath overplayed its' hand on this one. (Yeah Joyce, we see your fingerprints all over this one, or at least your tactics.) It defititely shows the mayor does not give two shits about the public schools, and that it's just a political football for him. If he can't control it, then deny the funds and cripple the school system.
Sheesh. What will he do next? Have Leggett donate the money to Archdiocese?
Both Downs and Archibald on Fox Saturday evening news both made their personal feelings clear. This group of seven will never be able to move forward. I hope that I am wrong. All seven are acting based on emotions and not sense. Pity that Archibald cannot acknowlege that the original four lost support of the community by their arrogance. Just as Downs and company became what they hated in Archibald and company, once the tables were turned, Archibald became just as petty and mean spirited as Downs.
Interesting how Archibald said that the board probably won't be able to honor 420 contract.
Posted by anon on Sat., Aug 26, 2006 at 11:04 PMAnon:
Come April, the residents of St. Louis will have an opportunity to decide if they want more of the same, or a different path forward.
Posted by travis reems on Sun., Aug 27, 2006 at 10:02 AMActually, they won't. Board control is not going to be at stake in the April 2007 election.
Posted by publiceye on Sun., Aug 27, 2006 at 2:51 PMPubliceye:
Board control is not the issue. Positive ideas, positive direction, and positive action are what will be at stake in the April election.
Posted by travis reems on Sun., Aug 27, 2006 at 6:00 PMTravis, a shade naive don't you think? And to Da Rat Bastid, Slay doesn't run the Collector's office; he is elected by the people, or was.
Posted by worried citizen on Mon., Aug 28, 2006 at 8:37 AMWorried Citizen, the rest of us aren't as naive as you take us to be. You have been defending everything the mayor and his slate has done from day one--plundering and pillaging the district, selling prime property for a pittance of its value (actually almost auctioning it off since no fair market price was asked or paid), raising salaries of the select elite inspite of fiscal deficits, neoptism and cronyism that only increased in the past three years, etc. Everyone knows politicians exert and exercise power behind the scenes even where they have no direct jurisdiction; that applies to both Democrats and Republicans. Travis wasn't naive; he was being optimistic, which goes completely against a sore loser.
Posted by Helen Louise on Mon., Aug 28, 2006 at 9:11 AM
Right a Wrong. Submit any tips or story ideas by using our anonymous email form. Confidentiality is guaranteed.