Data center opponents in a Missouri town file to recall mayor and council members 11%

By Katie Grawitch0%

5/21/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Optimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 130 hits. Analysis detected 782 faulty-reasoning hits from 658 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.4% and a BS Rank of 11% (19,642 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.70% of the article peer group.

Data center opponents in Festus filed recall petitions this week for the mayor and three council members. 
The petitions are the latest in a series of retaliations against city officials who voted in favor of a proposed hyperscale data center. 
The petitions name council members David Boyer of Ward 1, Kevin Dennis of Ward 3, Michael Cook of Ward 4 and Mayor Sam Richards. 
Circulators need signatures from 25% of the registered voters in the city or ward affected to get the recall on the ballot. 
The petition states the recall is warranted by previous milestones toward the data center project "without adequate public participation, transparency, or consideration of resident concerns." 
"Major municipal decisions have been advanced without meaningful opportunity for public input or a vote of the citizens directly affected, demonstrating a failure to competently represent and protect the interests of the residents," the petition reads. 
Chuck Hatfield with Stinson LLP provides legal counsel for the officials facing possible recall. 
He said the petitions' circulators failed to provide adequate reasoning to recall the officials. 
"The reason that these folks in Festus want to recall my clients appears to be that they disagree with their decisions, and that is not a reason to recall somebody in the middle of their term," Hatfield said. 
He also requested that Jefferson County Clerk Jeannie Goff send a letter describing how she will calculate the signatures, since the city council recall petition requires signatures from a quarter of registered voters in that member's ward. 
"Normally, you do it based on some prior vote, like when you're doing statewide petitions," Hatfield said. 
"It's a certain percentage of however many votes were cast in the last election, and that's a little easier to figure out. 
So, she's got some math to do  which I'm sure she can do  but she needs to go through those steps." 
Festus resident Erica Carter led the campaign for signatures. 
She said circulators had limited space to describe their grievances on the petition. 
"Don't know how you could be very detailed with the 200 word limit," Carter said. 
"What's the logic behind fighting this? 
Their attorney is saying it's not valid, and I don't understand how that could be." 
Carter said residents believe city council members are not performing their duties. 
"The majority of our people that I've spoken to want to keep our town how it is," Carter said. 
"We're not anti-growth, but we want to do it responsibly. 
And this is not responsible." 
Data center opposition group Wake Up Jeffco sued the City of Festus and developer CRG last month, arguing that city officials knowingly withheld public information related to the project. 
Voters recently ousted all four city council incumbents in favor of anti-data center candidates following months of backlash against the proposed project. 
The city council is still absent one member after Ward 2 council member Staci Templeton resigned in April. 
Templeton voted in favor of some milestones toward the data center project but most recently voted against an agreement with developer CRG. 
Certifying the petition 
Jefferson County Clerk Jeannie Goff said the volunteers collected "well above" the number of signatures needed to be considered for a recall. 
But she said the county clerk's office still needs to match signatures to each person's voter registration to verify that they live in the city or ward. 
Goff said that could take every bit of the 10-day deadline given to the clerk's office Monday. 
But Goff said the office has never missed a deadline. 
"It's a little time consuming, but we're going to get it right," Goff said. 
"Nobody wants to work over the holiday weekend, but that's what we'll do." 
The Jefferson County Clerk's office has until next Thursday to certify the petitions. 
If the clerk's office finds the petitions don't have enough signatures, the circulators have 10 days to appeal. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%Katie Grawitch: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Katie Grawitch: 2.7%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic4.4%This article: 4.4%Katie Grawitch: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic4.4%This article: 3.3%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias3.3%This article: 3.3%Katie Grawitch: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias3.3%This article: 4.4%Katie Grawitch: 8.0%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Katie Grawitch: 4.9%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias8.2%This article: 2.3%Katie Grawitch: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias2.3%This article: 19.8%Katie Grawitch: 8.9%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias19.8%This article: 3.6%Katie Grawitch: 2.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Katie Grawitch: 3.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.6%Katie Grawitch: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority2.6%This article: 1.5%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma1.5%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.1%Katie Grawitch: 3.5%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization8.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.9%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon2.9%This article: 5.3%Katie Grawitch: 6.9%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion5.3%This article: 0.8%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.8%This article: 3.3%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.8%Katie Grawitch: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.1%Katie Grawitch: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.6%Katie Grawitch: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity4.6%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.3%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote9.3%This article: 0.9%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.9%This article: 1.5%Katie Grawitch: 2.6%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice1.5%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

658 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers53%attributed speech309writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield with Stinson LLP • 14 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield with Stinson LLP • 38 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield with Stinson LLP • 37 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield with Stinson LLP • 17 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield with Stinson LLP • 22 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Hatfield with Stinson LLP • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 13 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 15 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 6 words • 100.0% coverageErica Carter • 15 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 12 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 19 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 10 words • 100.0% coverageErica Carter • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJeannie Goff • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Erica Carter

86%flagged-word coverage
95 attributed words27% of attributed speech44% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-19.7 ptsWriter: 19.7%Erica Carter: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice+10.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Erica Carter: 10.5%10.5%Quote-first Misdirection+6.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Erica Carter: 6.3%6.3%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.