(From Stotts City Mayor Tracy Knight)Stotts City Mayor Tracy Knight is formally responding to the censure resolution adopted by the Stotts City Board of Aldermen on July 17, 2026, stating that while she respects the Board's ability to express its disapproval through censure, she disputes the resolution's characterization of events and rejects provisions she believes attempt to restrict duties and authority assigned to the Mayor under Missouri law.
Since the censure was adopted, Knight has requested that her formal response be placed on the agenda for recent Board meetings. To date, she has not been afforded the opportunity to present that response during a Board meeting.
“The Board has the right to express its disapproval through a censure, and I respect that process,” Knight said. “What I do not accept is the use of a censure resolution to attempt to restrict responsibilities and authority that Missouri law assigns to the office of Mayor.”
Missouri law assigns mayors of fourth-class cities responsibilities involving the supervision of municipal officers and the examination of complaints concerning alleged misconduct or neglect of duty.
“A censure does not rewrite Missouri law, amend City ordinances, or remove statutory responsibilities from the Mayor,” Knight said. “Those responsibilities are established by law, and I will continue to perform them.”
Knight said some allegations contained in the resolution involve confidential personnel matters that she will not publicly disclose.
“I will not compromise employee confidentiality simply to defend myself publicly,” Knight said. “That should not be interpreted as agreement with the allegations or acceptance of the version of events presented in the resolution.”
Knight said she has preserved documentation concerning the disputed matters and will continue addressing them through appropriate channels.
“The citizens of Stotts City elected me to perform the duties of Mayor—not merely those duties that are convenient or agreeable to other elected officials,” Knight said. “I will continue asking questions, requesting records, addressing concerns involving municipal operations, demanding accountability, and pursuing opportunities to move Stotts City forward.”
Knight emphasized that disagreement between elected officials does not alter the responsibilities of their respective offices.
“I respect the Board's right to disagree with me. I do not accept that a censure resolution can be used to prevent the Mayor from exercising authority or fulfilling responsibilities established by Missouri law.”
7 comments:
🚨 HEY, INSIDE JOPLIN… WE HAVE A QUESTION. 🚨
How does this work?
When citizens send you information about what is happening in Stotts City — board members walking out of meetings, officials allegedly threatening citizens, possible violations of law, and attempts to interfere with our constitutional rights — apparently that information isn't newsworthy.
Even when citizens provide documentation and proof. 📄
But when the Mayor reaches out?
📰 POOF! A STORY!
Interesting. 🤔
So, Inside Joplin, are citizens supposed to have the right to be heard too, or do we need to hold an elected office before you'll pay attention?
We're not asking you to believe us.
We're asking you to investigate the evidence we've already provided.
Because when one side gets a microphone while the citizens holding the receipts get ignored, people are going to start wondering:
Is this journalism… or is this picking sides?
So here's your chance, Inside Joplin:
Explain it.
Why does the Mayor get a story while the citizens get ignored? 👀
If people really cared about Stotts City and not about the drama that is being created/fabricated then maybe there would continue to be a Stotts City. No one is mentioning at the last meeting that the town announced it was broke and had to put a freeze on the general account spending. No one is mentioned that the town was unable to pay all its bills last month. No one mentions on here that the mayor is having board meetings in a place that wants to restrict citizens rights to free speech or that the mayor publicly (on her “official” facebook page makes fun of the alderman’s concerns. No mention of the mayor lack of keeping the meeting moving forward instead of stopping the citizens from talking out of turn. It appears this mayor just wants the limelight.
Let’s Correct the Record.
The Mayor is not “stalling” the meetings. The Aldermen are the ones refusing to cooperate because they don’t want the meeting held at the church—and they are the ones who have walked out.
And while we’re talking about attendance, let’s talk about Alderman Moore. Based on the meeting records, she has missed more meetings than she has attended. Yet somehow the blame for meetings not taking place is being placed on the Mayor.
If we’re going to talk about the town supposedly being “broke,” then let’s ask some legitimate questions. The town wasn’t supposedly broke a month ago. Now, all of a sudden, we’re hearing about financial problems while there is also a petition circulating to dissolve the city.
That timing deserves questions.
And let’s talk about the people these elected officials are supposed to represent: the citizens.
Alderman Shepherd was apparently willing to have citizens—including elderly residents—potentially standing outside in 100° weather rather than hold the meeting somewhere like the church where citizens could safely attend.
Then Alderman Blankenship’s response was: “You don’t have to be there. That’s your choice.”
Yes, citizens have a choice. But elected officials also have a responsibility to the people they were elected to represent.
We aren’t asking for special treatment.
We’re asking for accessible public meetings, accountability, transparency, and elected officials who are willing to sit down with citizens instead of walking out.
So let’s be clear:
The citizens aren’t stopping the meetings.
The Mayor isn’t stopping the meetings.
The Aldermen who refuse to cooperate, walk out, or fail to show up are contributing to the problem.
The record matters.
The citizens matter.
And accountability matters.
Can you explain how the alderman are stalling the meetings. Every available video is either silence waiting on the mayor to call for a motion or complete chaos of everyone talking over each other. It’s my understanding that the mayor is supposed to keep order. You also speak about accessibility …how is have to go in the back door of the church accessible to the handicapped?? You also talk about transparency…what isn’t transparent?? And lastly “talk about dissolving the city” was mentioned on some messed up TilTok page!!
Does anyone, including this responder know what they are talking about???
City “broke” or is it more of a matter that some operational accounts are deficient so bill pay is a problem or are ALL city accounts deficient – looks like water and sewer accounts show a balance of sixty some thousand dollars so it will be assumed that the general budget is in distress - it has been noted that water/sewer monies do have restrictions that control how those funds are allocated and are unavailable for general fund obligations – it does appear that a General Fund Loan may be executed under strict provisions, particularly applicable to loan terms, interest rates, and repayment schedules (feasible or total BS ???)
Is The First Baptist Church really trying to restrict free speech, although I don’t know that an MOU is necessary, any private organization providing a public service by allowing public gatherings in their facilities should have the expectation that participants in those meetings moderate and self regulate their behavior at such gatherings – this has to be better than standing around the front of the fire house, people milling around and spread out up and down the street – reminds one of a farm auction with bargain hunters looking for a deal or trying to sneak all the real bargains into an unsuspecting box to snag a bunch of “good stuff” at a bargain price all the while the auctioneer is barking his cadence into the ever present bull horn – what a country
Comments offered in this thread seem to support the underlying characterization exhibited by previous posts – it’s the Mayor’s citizens vs the Alderman citizens and never the twain’s shall meet – it appears these two groups just don’t like each other regardless where a meeting is held
Gear up for a season of mind numbing attrition until the municipal elections in April 2026 which may offer opportunities to break the stalemate between the Executive branch and the “super majority” Legislative branch of Stotts City government -
correction April 2027
It appears that you moved away maybe because you didn't want any heat coming down on you . It's funny the city wasn't broke last month? All of of a sudden in August they are? I'd say Aldermen Blankenship , Alderman Wade Shepherd and Ms Permian are the drama queens!! I'm sure those demanding rights, walking out or saying they don't care if elders people die because of their negligence, fits in that category!!!!! I would think they're trying to get the light off of the things they don't want us to find out about!!!!
Post a Comment