State Audit Petition Moves Forward After Signature Certification, Leadership Dispute Emerges
By Connie Whitlock
Publishing Editor
A citizen-led effort to trigger a state audit of the City of Pleasant Hill is officially moving forward after the required petition signatures were certified by the Cass County Clerk and submitted to the Missouri State Auditor’s Office.
According to organizers involved in the petition effort, 673 valid signatures were required to initiate the audit process. A total of 771 signatures were certified by the Cass County Clerk, allowing the petition to advance.
The petition effort began under the leadership of Pleasant Hill resident Carla Murray, who reportedly worked with the Missouri State Auditor’s Office beginning in July 2025 to vet concerns related to city policies and procedures, before signatures were collected throughout the fall, winter, and spring.
On April 8, John Self traveled to Jefferson City to deliver the signatures to the State Auditor’s Office. Self was a key role in being on the ground, collecting signatures for the effort.
According to information shared by those involved, John Self believed Murray’s personal obligations, including caring for a sick husband and foster children, made it appropriate for him to step in as chief petitioner to help manage the process moving forward. Self’s Official Comment (Also Below Article)
Carla Murray and several other volunteers supporting the audit effort said they did not learn the signatures had been submitted until May 13th. After contacting the Missouri State Auditor’s Office, Murray said she was informed that she was still recognized as the official Chief Petitioner because she had initiated the process with the state. According to Murray, the office told her the designation could only be transferred if she voluntarily relinquished the role to John Self, which she declined to do.
The disagreement has now become public, creating tension among some of the individuals involved in the petition drive. Murray has reportedly expressed frustration over how the signatures were submitted and over claims that she said she was too exhausted to continue in the lead role.
We reached out to Murray for comment, and she said, “I think the disagreement could have been avoided, and it’s unfortunate, but the certification of the petition audit is an important step forward for Pleasant Hill. I continue to strongly believe this process is about creating a stronger foundation for our city’s future by reviewing resident concerns, correcting issues where needed, and helping ensure responsible growth moving forward. I look forward to working with the audit team to help ensure residents’ concerns are heard and addressed throughout the process.
The petition drive has also drawn attention because of Self’s continued involvement in local politics. Self campaigned for Council-at-Large in Pleasant Hill in the spring election.
In a recent public campaign statement, Self described himself as “no politician” and said he is running because he believes there is “a huge disconnect between what the residents of this city say that they want and need, versus what our city government actually does.”
“I believe that the role of Council is to listen to you and put what you say into practice,” Self wrote in his campaign statement.
The Missouri State Auditor’s Office has not yet announced a timeline for completing the audit or which specific city operations may ultimately be reviewed. The audit team leader here, assigned to the audit for Pleasant Hill, has contacted Murray and is now building a team to conduct the audit.
John Self’s Official Statement from his Facebook Page – John Self for Pleasant Hill (unedited)
“This is posted here in regards to chatter happening elsewhere.
I am the one that submitted the Audit petition, and I chose to do it without telling the other people on the Team for a reason. I am hesitant to explain all of it here because it involves revealing the intimate details of other people’s lives, but the whole thing needs to be heard, and I’ll do my best to be respectful of everyone’s positions. I apologize in advance if this is not the right thing to do if I don’t handle this the right way, but it’s my call right now, and I’m making it.
During the course of meeting over a thousand people that supported this Audit, there were a few that chose to cuss us out, lie about our motives, and threaten us. I personally have received statements that ‘They are going to kill you’, which I have not published because they have come from prominent people that are known in this community. I have had people that are against the audit lie about how we approached people about it, they have made up stories and falsified facts, and they have smeared our names and reputations on social media.
We have YEARS of our lives in the audit, and we owe it to every signer to protect their support and their faith in us. When it reached a certain size, I literally carried the audit with me everywhere I went for two months. If you saw me with a lunchbox, that is why. We worried about house fires, tornados, theft, and attacks. There was significant pushback on the audit, and that only occurs when people are threatened, and people are only threatened if they have a reason to be. I guarded the signers’ trust in our team with my life, and with each signature our responsibility to the people of Pleasant Hill increased.
I am trying to walk the line between privacy and transparency here so please bear with me: During the course of collecting signatures, people on our team had family members that were hospitalized with (at the time undiagnosed) illness, who were literally reported on the edge of death. Those same people on our team had multiple small children at home, personal health issues of their own, and were having problems with exhaustion, stress, lack of sleep (small children with high energy), etc.
*I* made the decision to not inform the team that we were submitting signatures, because I did not want the threats, smear campaigns, etc to impact the other team members’ lives when they were balancing small children and the severe illness of the person that was supposed to be helping them with those children. *I* made that decision to protect those people from the garbage we were dealing with, and it is with the deepest regret that I ended up hurting them while trying to protect them. Honestly, had there not been small children in those people’s homes, I would not have kept quiet about submitting the audit, but when it comes to children and threats of harm, I will never take that risk and only God can judge me in that.
Jessie and I discussed how to submit this beforehand, and several times after. Transparency was *always* at the forefront of these discussions. We always were and still are in agreement that it did not feel right. Jessie wanted to tell the team about it, and I requested that she not. She did not do what was easy, but what she did do what she thought was right at the time, and that put her in a place where she was trying to honor my request and protect our friends, versus her standards of transparency. *I* made a decision that had no right answer, Jessie was never comfortable with it, and I am very, very sorry that I put her in that position where people that don’t know her are judging her.
When we dropped the audit off in Jefferson City, we explained to the SAO that the other people involved were having the life issues discussed above and that is why we were dropping off the petition instead. They said it not uncommon to have people submit a petition other than who initiated the process (surprisingly for many of the same reasons), and when I called them yesterday about all of this, they admitted the process was confusing and apologized profusely because it had been poorly explained to us. We received very mixed messages about us being the ‘petition submitters’, compared to the people who ultimately did the hard work on the audit and were the ‘audit petitioners’. (I’m not sure I have those terms correct). I am honestly still confused on it.
Jess has always said that she was uncomfortable with not being open and transparent, and I have always agreed with her but requested that she not say anything until we knew facts. It was a rock and a hard place. We did not know how many of the signatures we submitted would be valid, and we were kept in the dark about how many we even had that were valid for over a month. Literally, other people in Pleasant Hill were notified before we were. With a deadline approaching, we continued to gather signatures and I can tell you that the month between submission and confirmation is ten times more stressful than six months of collecting, canvassing, and wondering. This stress was also something that I had hoped to spare those team members.
I’m not happy about the decision that I made, I’m even more unhappy about putting Jess in the position of having to lie about what *I* chose to do, and I never would have gotten involved with the audit at all if I had thought for a second that it would have cost us the trust and friendships of people that we both value highly.
That said, I made the decision that I thought was right at the time and I made that decision with lots of thought and sleepless nights and I stand by it for the reasons I did it. I never did it to ‘hide’ anything, and Jessie and I knew that once everything was filed, everything would come to light no matter what happened along the way (at the time we had also discussed what would happen to the petition if something were to happen to both of us). So, by filing it as soon as we felt it had a chance, we knew that transparency was assured, even if not in the most desirable manner.
I apologize deeply for the hurt, violation, and alienation that it caused by how I did it, but I will never apologize for trying to protect those I care about and in the end, the whole point of the audit was to protect ALL of the residents of Pleasant Hill, because EVERYONE on this team cares deeply about ALL of you.””