BELLE — Belle Mayor Daryl White, Jr., and the board of aldermen are named in a 23-page petition filed Tuesday by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s Office (AGO) on allegations the …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
BELLE — Belle Mayor Daryl White, Jr., and the board of aldermen are named in a 23-page petition filed Tuesday by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s Office (AGO) on allegations the “city of Belle committed systematic and pervasive violations of Open Meetings Law in 2023.”
The five-count petition cites at least 22 different meeting dates where violations of state law are alleged and requests injunctive relief for the city’s failure to comply, including fines in the amount of “$1,000 in monetary penalties for each knowing violation; $5,000 in monetary penalties for each purposeful violation; and any such further relief as the court finds just and appropriate.”
Count 1 references at least three public meetings where the board and mayor failed to provide notice.
Count 2 references five separate meeting violations for discussing public items not on the agenda.
Count 3 lists journal and records violations for the open meetings. Allegations are that meeting minutes were not kept or made available for two board of aldermen meetings and a board of adjustment meeting.
Count 4 alleges the city went into a closed session to discuss and purchase a K9 officer, which does not meet any reason to enter into a closed session.
Count 5 alleges 10 meetings where minutes do not include a specific section of 610.021 that would authorize a meeting closure.
This investigation stems from complaints by the Maries County Sheriff’s Office and submitted Dec. 9, 2022, to the Missouri Attorney General’s Office. The AGO requested a response on June 16, 2022, which include public documents. The case has been filed in the Maries County 25th Circuit Court.
On page three of the petition, the AGO lists White’s active duties as mayor, including, “exercise general supervision over all the office and affairs of the city, take care that ordinances of the city and state laws relating to the city are compiled with.”
According to the petition, “Mayor Daryl White has failed to ensure that the Missouri Open Meetings Law has been complied with.”
Count 1 alleges the city failed to provide sufficient notice for three public meetings in 2023.
The city failed to provide the AGO with copies of meeting notices or agendas for meetings held May 31 and June 6, according to the report. The AGO believes the city did not post public meeting notices, though it maintained minutes from both meetings.
Additionally, on or about 5 p.m. on Monday, July 31, aldermen and the mayor held a special meeting that they posted on July 28 for July 11. At or about 4:15 p.m. on Monday, July 31, the city amended the meeting notice and changed the date to reflect that the board would convene on July 31. Members of the public were not given adequate 24-hour notice.
“The city violated the Open Meetings Law because it did not provide time, date, and place of either or both of all three meetings,” according to the report.
In Count 2, pertaining to discussions of public business which were not on the agenda, allegations against the city are, “On several occasions throughout 2023, the board posted a notice of public meeting that included an agenda not reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered…the agenda lacked reasonable specificity on items intended to be discussed.”
The report specifically mentions an April 24 meeting where the only agenda item was to “Review Engineer Qualifications for the Rock Island Trail.”
During the public meeting, the board discussed and voted to approve six additional items and took four public votes. These votes included, “accepting a grant proposal, voting to appoint the city marshal as street commissioner and increase the marshal’s pay, and changing time clock rules for city employees. Neither votes nor discussion items were included on the city’s meeting notice.”
The city has not provide the AGO with a copy of the agenda for the meeting other than what was posted on April 18.
Notice for a May 9 meeting, posted on April 12, also did not include any agenda items. During the meeting the board discussed several items of public business, including: approval of bills to be paid, resignation of a member from the board of adjustments, proposed ordinance rezoning, resignation of the public works director, a sidewalk project, citywide clean up, a police car, and a franchise electric agreement.
It is believed that the meeting was guided by an agenda, however, the city did not post a copy of that tentative agenda to the public more than 24 hours in advance. It is also believed that the original agenda did not include the resignation of an employee, C.J., and the width of a right-of-way, or donating gate fees collected at events to two different entities, though a board vote was taken. Additionally, during an April 11 meeting, the board continued to discuss items of public business not on the meeting notice, though an agenda guided the meeting.
The board voted on making a insurance claim and purchasing new lift station pumps. Items were listed under Public Works and department head reports, however, the agenda item was not reasonably specific to inform the public of the votes or expenditures to take place, according to the AGO petition.
On Feb. 21, the board held a special meeting with an open and closed session. However, the AGO alleges both sessions should have been held in public.
The board’s agenda listed “police department” which is not an agenda item that sufficiently informs the public of matters to be considered, as it is too broad to provide meaningful information to the public. During the meeting, the board discussed purchasing a K9 police dog and took a vote to make a counter-offer on the animal.
“Neither the expenditure of public funds nor any reasonably-specific information on a K9 dog were included on the public meeting agenda,” according to the report.
On Feb. 13, the board held a public meeting and noted “accept resignation” under the topic of “old business.” The AGO alleges “accept resignation” is not an agenda topic that reasonably informs the public of the discussion. The resignation in question was for improperly assigned former alderman Gina Tegart. During the same meeting, the board appointed James Mitchell to the seat. Both events passed with a motion and vote.
Tegart lives in Ward 1 but was sworn in to represent Ward 2.
The posted agenda did not indicated a new board member would be under consideration for appointment. The city knew, or should have known in advance of the meting, that the board would be making an appointment and White and the board have known that agendas must be reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters considered at a public meeting, the AGO alleges in the petition.
Under Count 3, journals and records violations for open meetings, the AGO requested public records from the city and did not receive the following open session meeting minutes for March 23, May 11 or May 30.
On March 23 the board met to discuss its Active Living Plan. It was the only agenda item and did not have minutes.
On May 11, the Board of Adjustments met to discuss an ordinance to “rezone 203 Lenhoff Drive from R-1 to B-1. The board is a public governmental body of the city and is required to have minutes.
The city posted a May 30 meeting notice and failed to post a cancellation notice — or failed to provide the AGO with the notice.
Based on the information listed, the AGO alleges the city has failed to maintain meeting minutes for those meetings and violated Section 610.020.7 as required and exhibited a conscious design, intent or plan to violate the Open Meetings Law.
Count 4, public meetings must remain open unless they are specifically allowed to be closed by law.
“The specific reason announced for a public governmental body to close a meeting must relate directly to a specific provision in 610.021, which authorizes a public governmental body to conduct a closed public meeting.
On Feb. 12, the board held a special session public meeting that included open and close discussion. However, both sessions should have been open. The board voted to close the meeting to discuss a “counter offer amount,” in regards to the purchase of a K9 police dog from Maries County Sheriff’s Department. The AGO alleges the discussion and vote are a knowing violation.
Finally, Count 5 alleges the mayor and board of aldermen are not stating the specific reasons to close meetings by reference to the specific section and chapter of state statute.
“The board of aldermen has held closed-session meetings without properly recording in the meeting minutes the reason for closing, according to Open Meeting Law.”
The board held closed meetings on Jan. 10; Feb. 13; Feb. 21; March 9; March 14; April 6; April 11; April 24; May 9; and May 31. Each meeting was considered public and the board did not properly identify its reasoning for entering into closed session and the agendas did not sufficiently identify the sub-section for the meeting’s closure.
“The city exhibited a conscious design, intent or plan to violate the Open Meeting Law,” according to the AGO. “The city was aware that consequences exist for violating the Open Meeting Law.”
The petition, filed on behalf of Bailey by Jason K. Lewis, general counsel for the AGO, may be read in its entirety at MariesCountyAdvocate.com.
