Prosecutor delves into allegations of Sunshine Law violations

By Ralph Pokorny

Nevada Daily Mail

On Jan. 26, Lynn M. Ewing, Vernon County Prosecuting Attorney, sent a letter to the city of Nevada putting them on notice that he is considering filing suit against the city council, the city manager and the city of Nevada for allegedly violating the Missouri Sunshine Law.

Ewing has given the city until the end of Monday, Feb. 27, to provide a formal written response before he decides whether to file suit or not.

"I write concerning claims referred to my office by a group of Nevada citizens. The claims that are summarized herein assert that the Nevada City Council violated the open meetings requirements of the Missouri Sunshine Law. I direct your attention to the requirements of Chapter 610 of the Missouri Revised Statutes," Ewing's letter states.

According to his letter to the city, two matters have been brought to his attention.

The first alleged violation occurred during the June 15, 2006, city council meeting, when according to the minutes of that meeting "Councilperson Meyers stated he had polled the Council and the consensus was to hire Bob Saunders to help fill the City Treasurer position."

Ewing's letter continues: "It appears from the minutes that there was a discussion between council members on personnel matters without notice of a public meeting and without any notice of an intent to discuss the matter in closed session. It is unclear whether a formal vote was taken." Section 610.021 and Section 610.022 of The Missouri Sunshine Law requires that the city must post a meeting notice in the city hall at least 24 hours before a public meeting occurs and the notice must include the date of the meeting, the meeting time and place, as well as a tentative agenda for an open meeting and whether the meeting is open or closed. Personnel matters can be discussed in a closed session; however, the council must cite in open session the specific section and subsection of the Sunshine Law permitting the closed meeting. If a vote is taken during a closed meeting, the result must be made public.

The second alleged violation occurred in October 2006 when the city terminated its contract with Adams & Associates for architectural services for a new terminal building at the Municipal Airport.

According to Ewing's letter, the city council minutes of Aug. 2, 2005, show that the city council passed Ordinance No. 6395 authorizing the city to enter into a contract with Adams & Associates for architectural services in connection with the Nevada Municipal Airport Terminal Facility Project, which was later executed.

Ewing's letter states: "Jim Adams alleges that on 3 October 2006 City Manager Moore and Human Resources director Randy Marti came to Adams' office and told him that the contract was being terminated. Mr. Adams requested a letter from the City terminating the contract. Mr. Moore promised the letter. Mr. Adams did not receive a letter, but received instead a proposed 'Mutual Release' from the City.

"None of the minutes of the City Council meetings reflect any discussion of or votes taken on the termination of the contract with Adams & Associates until 13 October 2006. It appears from the records that no votes were taken in open or closed session, prior to Harlan Moore's meeting with Jim Adams on October 2006, to terminate the contract or to authorize the City Manager to terminate the contract." Ewing also sent the city a time-line of the events provided by Jim Adams, as well as a time-line based on city council minutes from Aug. 2, 2005, to October 13, 2006, summarizing city council actions.

The letter continues: "It is suggested by the citizens group that one or more members of the City Council directed the City Manager to terminate the contract. The time-lines beg the question whether members of the City Council discussed the matter between themselves or with the City Manager prior to the meeting with Adams on 3 October 2006. It does not appear that the Airport Board had any involvement in the termination.

"If the facts recited in the time-lines are accurate, the facts suggest one of two things occurred: 1) the City Manager took it on himself to terminate the contract with Adams without any council approval or direction, or 2) some members of the City Council voted in private to terminate the contract and directed the City Manager to carry out that decision."

According to a summary of the Missouri Sunshine Law on the Missouri Attorney General's Web site: If the court finds a public governmental body has violated the Sunshine Law, it may declare void any action taken in violation of the law. If the court finds, by a preponderance of evidence, that the public body or a member of the public body has knowingly violated the Sunshine Law, the court: Shall subject the member or body to a civil fine of up to $1,000; and May order the member or body to pay all costs and reasonable attorney fees to any party successfully establishing a violation.

If the court finds, by a preponderance of evidence, that the public body or member has purposely violated the Sunshine Law, the court shall: Subject the member or body to a civil fine of up to $5,000; and Order the member or body to pay all court costs and reasonable attorney fees.

The letter from Lynn Ewing III to the city of Nevada is a public record and copies can be requested through the Nevada City Clerk, 110 S. Ash Street, or the Vernon County Prosecutors office in the Vernon County Courthouse. The city usually requires anyone wanting copies of documents to fill out a request form and charges 10 cents per page for copies, plus research time, which is permitted by the Missouri Sunshine Law.