South St. Louis alderman says support exists to remake the city’s contracting processes93%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

12/19/2025, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 19.6% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 1,519 faulty-reasoning hits from 611 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 87.4% and a BS Rank of 93% (1,656 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.20% of the article peer group.

Alderman Matt Devoti of the 5th Ward, shown during swearing-in ceremonies in April, has had some major pieces of legislation in his first term. 
In the days after the May 16 tornado, 5th Ward Alderman Matt Devoti and other attorneys from his law firm were in the affected neighborhoods doing triage for legal needs. 
The 30 or so days he spent in north and west St. Louis helped him understand what the city needs to provide as winter sets in even further. 
“In my opinion, the City of St. Louis is never going to be in the financial position to help rebuild or to build,” Devoti said recently on Politically Speaking. 
“What we can do, and what we must do, is help folks find shelter that is within our capacity.” 
But like many members of the Board of Aldermen, Devoti does not believe the city is moving fast enough to get relief to affected residents. 
The problem, he said, lies in the contracting processes. 
For example, he said, city policy requires multiple bids, even for more immediate needs. 
Those bids have to be run through selection committees, and contracts have to be approved from the city’s fiscal oversight board. 
And don’t even think about using a digital program like DocuSign to get the required signatures, he said. 
“You've got to find somebody [and] stick a contract under their nose,” Devoti said. 
“It's archaic in 2025, but that's the system that was in place.” 
Devoti was complimentary of Comptroller Donna Baringer, who he said is already looking to make her office’s internal processes more efficient. 
But many changes will require action by the board. 
“The critical mass exists, and I can tell you that within the halls of the board, the work is getting done,” Devoti said. 
“It is not now to the point of filing a board bill, but we are getting near there.” 
Devoti said he and his colleagues share the frustration of residents at the slow pace of relief. 
But he said it is critical to do contracting reform correctly. 
“It needs to be done in a way that protects the financial responsibilities of the city to its residents,” he said. 
Here’s what else Devoti discussed on the podcast: 
- If he could, Devoti would make the office of city sheriff an appointed rather than an elected position. 
“There is so much drama, so much chaos and hand-wringing over a position that if it was merely appointed by the circuit judge, you and I would never be talking about it,” he said. 
“With all due respect to city voters, we have a position whose entire duties revolve around that circuit courthouse. 
His supervisor should be the circuit judges.” 
- Devoti was the lead sponsor of legislation that put limits on the use of golf carts on city streets. 
Though the bill became law after prime golf cart season, “I haven't seen since the mayor signed the bill, a kid driving a golf cart in the Hill neighborhood, and that was a big problem,” he said. 
- In addition to helping with the rewrite of the contracting process, Devoti wants to focus on changing the way the city handles nuisance properties. 
He envisions a system in which every complaint about a nuisance issue, from behaviors to property, comes into a central location and is then assigned to the proper department. 
“The idea is that we have a framework in place that everybody knows, and we could literally follow from step to step to step what is supposed to happen, and when the ball gets dropped, we can trace it back and figure out exactly why it's getting dropped,” he said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.6%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias4.6%This article: 5.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias5.9%This article: 16.2%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic16.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.4%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect14.4%This article: 2.9%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error2.9%This article: 19.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect19.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 14.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 14.7%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias14.7%This article: 19.6%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias18.3%This article: 10.3%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias10.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 11.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias11.0%This article: 8.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 10.6%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal10.6%This article: 1.1%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority1.1%This article: 2.8%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion2.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.1%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon4.1%This article: 4.6%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.7%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma8.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.1%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity13.1%This article: 13.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 13.7%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope13.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

611 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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